TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit by the appellant. Credit taken but not utilized till reversal, could not compel the assessee to pay interest. So, the demand of interest on the unutilised cenvat credit cannot be sustained. Amount of ₹ 74,00,000/- was availed by the appellant in a number of cases, while the input cenvat credit should have been taken only on the duty on the goods as mentioned in the invoice but instead of this, the credit was taken on the full value of the goods. In some cases, credit taken on the basis of Central Excise invoices or bills of entry is more than the amount of Central Excise duty/CVD mentioned in the Central Excise Invoices/bills of entry. Further, cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 28,00,000/- has been taken on cenvated capital go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest and appropriated the said amount as deposited by them and imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- under Rule 13(1) of Cenvat Credit Rule 2002/Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rule 2004. 2. The Ld Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that they have not utilised the credit as evident from the record and therefore, payment of interest does not arise. He further submits that the appellant wrongly taken the credit, which was reversed before issue of the show cause notice and the imposition of penalty is not warranted. He relied upon the decisions of the Hon ble High court as under : a) CCE vs Bill Forge Pvt Ltd 2012 (279)ELT 209 (Kar.) b) ACCEE Vs Dipsi chemicals Pvt Ltd 1987(32)ELT 556 (Bom) c) CCE vs Gokuldas Images ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in the case of Bill Forge Pvt Ltd (supra), after considering the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd held as under : In the instant case, the facts are not in dispute. The assessee had availed wrongly the Cenvat credit on capital goods. Before the credit was taken or utilized, the mistake was brought to its notice. The assessee accepted the mistake and immediately reversed the entry. Thus the assessee did not take the benefit of the wrong entry in the account books. As he had taken credit in a sum of ₹ 11,691-00, a sum of ₹ 154-00 was the interest payable from the date the duty was payable, which they promptly paid. The claim of the Revenue was, though the assessee has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compensate the Government which was deprived of the duty on the date it became due. Without the liability to pay duty, the liability to pay interest would not arise. The liability to pay interest would arise only when the duty is not paid on the due date. If duty is not payable, the liability to pay interest would not arise. 5. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dipsi Chemicals Pvt Ltd (supra) held that an interpretation (equally a misinterpretation) of the binding decision of the Supreme Court is itself binding subsequently on co-ordinate Courts and can be corrected only by a higher Court. We noticed that the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of M/ Strategic Engineering Pvt Ltd (supra) after considering the decisions of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
