TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han, Technical Member Appearance: Present Ms. Rinki Arora, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri Yogesh Agarwal, A.R. for the respondent Per V. Padmanabhan: The appeal is directed against the order in appeal dated 27.10.2010. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Solor PV Module and availed Cenvat Credit on capital goods inputs and input services. The dispute pertains to the Cenvat Credit availed during the period September 2008 and July 2009, during which the appellant cleared their final product availing the exemption from payment of duty under notification no. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. Since final product manufactured and cleared by the appellant was exempted from payment of duty, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ages (P) Ltd. 2012 (28) STR 214 (Kar.) iii) Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE Rohtak 2016 (332) ELT 865 (Tri-Del). iv) CCE Bangalore Vs. Pearl Insulation Ltd. 2012 (27) STR 337 (Kar.) v) L G Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Noida 2015-TIOL-1981-CESTAT-DEL 5. Ld. DR on the other hand, submitted that interest will be liable to be paid for the period from the date of availment of the credit till the date of such reversal. He submitted that Rule 11 of the Cenvat Credit Rules has been amended in 2013 to clearly indicate that interest will be payable only in the case where the inadmissible credit has been taken and utilized. He submitted that the disputed period is prior to such amendment and for such per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute that the Cenvat credit was wrongly taken by the appellant and the same was reversed later without utilization of the same. The issue now is 'whether there is liability of interest for the period when the said credit was lying in the Cenvat credit account of the appellant?.' The appellant has cited the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. (supra). However we find that there is direct ruling on this issue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd.- 2011 (265) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), where it has been held that where Cenvat Credit is taken OR utilized wrongly, the same along with the interest is to be recovered from manufacturer or the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 specifically provides that where CENVAT credit has been taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded, the same along with interest would be recovered from the manufacturer or the provider of the output service. The issue is as to whether the aforesaid word OR appearing in Rule 14, twice, could be read as AND by way of reading it down as has been done by the High Court. If the aforesaid provision is read as a whole we find no reason to read the word OR in between the expressions taken' or utilized wrongly' or has been erroneously refunded' as the word AND . On the happening of any of the three aforesaid circumstances such credit becomes recoverable along with interest. 6.1. The case laws cited by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
