TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Strategic Engg Pvt Ltd (2014 (11) TMI 89 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indo Swift Laboratories Ltd (2009 (7) TMI 98 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT) held that mere taking credit itself would not compel the assessee to pay interest as well as penalty. It is also observed that subsequent amendment Rule 14 of cenvat credit would make it clear. Demand of duty for the extended period of limitation cannot be sustained. payment of interest under Section 11AB to the Central Excise Act as they have not utilised such credit and the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the said Act, cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/959/2011, Appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid. He also submits that the appellant reversed the credit before the audit and issue of show cause notice and therefore, the demand of interest under Section 11AB and imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. He relied upon various decisions of the Hon ble Courts and Tribunals as under : a) CCE Vs M J Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd - 210.258.ELT.38 (Guj.) b) CCE Vs Bill Forge Pvt Ltd - 2012.26.STR.204 (Kar.) c) CCE vs Gokaldas Immages Pvt Ltd - 2012.28.STR.214 (Kar.) d) CCE vs Strategic Engg Pvt Ltd - 2014.310.ELT (Mad.) e) CCE vs Rana Sugar Ltd - 2010.253.ELT.366(All.) f) Rana Sugar Ltd - 210.249.ELT.247 (Tri. Del.) g) Final Order No A/10196/2015 dtd 4.2.2015 of CESTAT, Ahmd - h) Hindalo Industries Ltd Vs CCE 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from our cenvat credit account (RG 323A part II) vide entry No 2003 dated 29/2/2008 before its utilization, the credit so taken pertaining to electricity duty. Such credit had remanded in books of account and it was never utilized for payment of any duty of Excise or Service Tax. We notice inadvertent cenvat credit on our own and we have reversed the said wrongly taken cenvat credit. 7. A show cause notice dtd 25.3.2009 was issued proposing to appropriate amount, as reversed by the appellant on 29.2.2008 alongwith interest and penalty. It has been alleged that during the course of audit, it was found that the appellant had taken the credit on electricity charges and utilized the same in the month of April 2007 as per ER1 return file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty. It is also observed that subsequent amendment Rule 14 of cenvat credit would make it clear. 9. The Counsel cited various decisions of Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court. I find that the appellant had noticed the irregularity and reversed the credit. Learned Counsel contented that demand is not sustainable on limitation. On perusal of show cause notice, I find that the appellant shown credit in their ER1 return. The appellant vide its letter dtd 26.3.2008 informed the jurisdictional Superintendent, Central Excise, that they reversed credit on 29.2.2008. This fact was not disputed by the Revenue. Hence, the demand of duty for the extended period of limitation cannot be sustained. In any event, the appellant is not disputing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
