TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount from the Assessing Officer, who had not taken steps for four years and not from the respondent-assessee therein. The finding of the Supreme Court on interpreting the applicable Act was that no limitation period was prescribed, therefore, proceedings for recovery could be initiated within a reasonable time - the demand of interest is clearly unsustainable. Penalty u/r 15 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11AC - Held that: - the adjudicating authority was not convinced that the elements of Section 11AC were present. However, in the operative part of the order, the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- but the same has been done under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 15 of CCR, 2004. Penalty under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pointed out that they were not entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on furnace oil for manufacture of exempted and non-exempted goods. Further, they were not maintaining separate accounts for the furnace oil but were maintaining the separate record for steam, which was an intermediate product. Revenue felt that as they were not maintaining separate accounts of furnace oil under Rules 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, there was incorrect availment of credit of ₹ 1,40,75,259/-. The appellant reversed the credit of ₹ 1,85,611/- and ₹ 1,40,75,259/- on both counts on being pointed out by the Revenue. A show cause notice was issued on 19.11.2008 for demand of interest on the amount reversed by the appellant and proposing penalty under R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umption for each factory could be worked out and this fact was in the knowledge of the Department, which is evident from the Departments comments at Page 125 to 127 of the Paper Book. Ld. Advocate also pointed out that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had relied upon the judgment of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Vs. CCE (supra) which had been set aside by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hindustan insecticides Ltd. Vs. CCE (2013 (297) ELT 332 (Del.) He relied upon the following case laws:- 1. CCE Vs. VAE VKN Industries Pvt. Ltd. -2015 (322) ELT 269 (P H). 2. Kwality Ice Cream Company Vs. UOI 2012 (281) ELT 507 (Del.). 3. Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. Vs. CCE 2014 (307) ELT 282 (P H). 4. Hindustan insecticides Ltd. Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld the demand of interest on the basis of CESTAT judgment in the case of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. vs. CCE-2012 (286) ELT 208 (Tri.Del.) in which it was held as below: Demand - Limitation - Interest liability - It is determined by Department under Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 or self-determined by assessee under Section 11A(2B) ibid thereof or self-assessed by assessee for particular month under Rule 6 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - In all these cases, interest liability is automatic - It is a sum due to the Government , which if not paid, can be recovered directly by following procedure prescribed in Section 11 ibid for which there is no limitation period is prescribed - Neither separate written show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rily and by non-payment the respondent therein had become a defaulter. In these circumstances, it was observed by the Supreme Court as under :- 17. Thus, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified for deleting the interest levied by the authorities on the ground that no notice was served. In this view, the impugned judgment would normally be unsustainable. However, as already noticed, the respondent-assessee has specifically urged that the subsequent proceedings to the assessment is barred by limitation and that even though the order was passed on 6-6-1986 imposing tax liability etc., the assessing authority had passed another order only on 30-7-1990 holding that on admitted amount of tax, the assessee was liable to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not taken steps for four years. 14. A reading of the aforesaid paragraph would show that in the said case notice of payment for interest was issued after four years and it was held that it was beyond a reasonable period and the department could recover the amount from the Assessing Officer, who had not taken steps for four years and not from the respondent-assessee therein. The finding of the Supreme Court on interpreting the applicable Act was that no limitation period was prescribed, therefore, proceedings for recovery could be initiated within a reasonable time. The ratio in the said case is distinguishable for the reason that payment of interest is to be made under Section 11A and, therefore, the period of limitation prescribed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
