9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year. In terms of Rule 4(2a) and 4(2b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with CBEC Circular No.942/03/2011-cx, dated 1403.2011, the Department proceeded against the appellant for recovery of interest amounting to Rs. 3,37,251/- under Rule 14 of the said Rules read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposition of penalty under Rule 14 of the said Rules read with Section 11AC of the said Act. The Show Cause Notice dated 16.11.2011 issued in this regard culminated into the adjudication order dated 29.04.2013, confirming the interest amount of Rs. 3,37,251/- and imposing equal amount of penalty. In appeal, Id. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 26.12.2013 has confirmed the adjudged interest amount and set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. [2011 (265) ELT (SC)] to substantiate his stand that if the CENVAT credit is taken erroneously or refunded, irrespective of the fact that the same is utilised or not, interest liability is automatic, which is required to be paid by the assessee. 4. I have heard both parties and perused the records. 5. The fact is not in dispute that the appellant has commenced its commercial production on 01.07.2009. Thus, in the absence of manufacture of final products, there was no scope for removal of the same from the factory on payment of central excise duty. Hence, in such an eventuality, taking of CENVAT credit in the register maintained by the appellant will be considered as a mere book entry. Entering the credit particulars in the books has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rge his liability. Before utilization of such credit, he entry has been reversed, it amounts to not taking credit. Reversal of cenvat credit amounts to non-taking of credit on the inputs." 6. The judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd (supra), relied upon by the Revenue is not applicable to the facts of the present case, in-as-much-as, CENVAT credit in the said case was taken by the Respondent wrongly on the basis of fake invoices, whereas; in the circumstances of the present case, the credit taken in the register of the appellant on the basis of genuine documents, has not been utilised for clearance of the final product. 7. In view of the fact that the credit taken has not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
