TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -availment of CENVAT credit and hence interest and penalty not payable under Rule 15(1) of CCR, 2004 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/25642-25643/2013 - Final Order No. 21070 – 21071 / 2016 - Dated:- 3-11-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Shailendra Sukhlecha, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Ezhilmathi, AR, Mr. Mohammed Yousuf, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The appellant has filed two appeals against the common impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) vide his order dated 22.11.2012 vide which the learned Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellant. Since in both the appeals the issue is identical, hence both these appeals are disposed of by this commo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 1,76,023/- and appropriated the interest paid under protest. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Central excise mainly on the ground that mere wrong availment of CENVAT credit without utilisation of the same does not attract interest and penalty and consequently penalty not leviable when wrongly availed credit has been voluntarily reversed. The learned Commissioner (A) vide his order dated 22.12.2012 rejected the appeal of the appellant. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings in the impugned order and submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Indswift Laboratories Ltd. reported in 2011 (265) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that interest would be leviable from the date of wrong availment of credit. He further submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCR, the appellants are liable to pay interest as well as penalty. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Indswift Laboratories Ltd. cited supra is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same has been considered by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
