9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt ORDER Per : S.S Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.9.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are holders of Central Excise Registration for manufacturing of 'Battery Operated Electric Car' falling under Chapter Sub-Hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who upheld the Order-in-Original. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CENVAT credit but did not utilize the same, therefore they are not liable to pay the interest also. He also submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012 (26) STR 204 (Kar.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court after analyzing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y availed credit and had reversed the same before utilizing the availed credit for remittance of duty, interest liability and penalty would not arise. 5. Therefore, by following the ratio of the above said decisions, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as far as demanding interest and penalty is concerned. Therefore, I allow the appeal of the appellant by sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
