TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aka High Court in the case of CCE, ST and LTU, Bangalore vs. Bill Forge Pvt.Ltd. (2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ) held that before utilization of credit, if the same has been reversed it would amount to not taking credit and would not attract liability of interest. Similar view has been taken in the other judgements cited and placed before us. Following the principle laid in these judgements, we hold that as the credit has been reversed before utilization, the demand of interest is unsustainable. Imposition of penalty - Interestingly, it is seen stated in the show cause notice that the same is issued invoking the extended period of limitation. As per records, the department has come to know about wrongful availment of credit an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fabrics. They were operating under Notification No.29/2004-CE and 30/2004-CE both dated 9.7.2004. The appellants were clearing dutiable as well as exempted products from their unit and were also availing credit of service tax paid on input service. The appellants did not maintain separate account as provided under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the department therefore observed that the credit availed on the input service was not admissible to the appellants. The Range Superintendent vide letter dated 9.8.2007 informed the same to the appellants. On pointing out the defects, the appellants reversed the credit amount of ₹ 65,21,123/- pertaining to the period January, 2007 to March, 2007 under protest on 17.10.2007. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the appellants. He drew our attention to the letter dated 4.7.2006 issued by the appellant to the department informing the department the intention of the appellant to make clearance under Notification No.29/2004-CE and 30/2004-CE both dated 9.7.2004. In this letter, the appellants also informed the department the manner of taking credit on inputs, capital goods and input service. Further, on request of the department, the appellants furnished month wise details of credit availed by them during the disputed period. He urged that there was no suppression of facts or wilful mis-statement and the imposition of penalty is totally unjustified. 5. Against this, learned DR Shri R.K.Mishra, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts the same on 9.8.2007. The show cause notice is dated 24.1.2008 which in our view is within the period of limitation. We do not find any ground necessary for invoking the extended period of limitation. Be that as it may, the contention of the appellant that there was no suppression of facts or wilful mis-statement is not without force. On 4.7.2006, the appellants have written letter explaining the manner of availing the credit of inputs, capital goods and input service. Further, when the department called for to furnish the details regarding availment of credit, the appellants had furnished the same. On such score, we hold that the respondent have miserably failed to establish suppression or mis-statement with intention to evade payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
