TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SM - A/50534/2018 - Dated:- 5-2-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial ) Shri Ankit Totuka, C.A. - for the appellant Shri K. Poddar, D.R. - for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein demand of interest has been confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation. 2. The facts of the case are that during the course of audit for the period Sept. 2006 to October, 2011, it was found that the appellant has availed inadmissible Cenvat credit and on pointing out by the Audit Team on 2.9.2011, the appellant reversed the Cenvat credit. Later on, a show cause notice dated 26.2.2013 was issued to the appellant for demand of interest for the intervening peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of this Court in M/s. Jai Bharat Maruti Limited s case (supra) and may be disposed of in the same terms. In the said judgment, it has been held as under :- We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and find no reason to differ from the opinion recorded by the Delhi High Court in Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. v. Commissioner Central Excise, LTU (supra). The CESTAT, vide a common order, dismissed appeals filed by the appellant and M/s. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. The order passed by CESTAT has been reversed by the Delhi High Court, by relying upon judgments in Kwality Ice Cream Company and Another v. Union of India and others [(2012) 281 E.L.T. 507 ] and Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew has been taken by the Bombay High Court in Central Excise Appeal No. 116/2011, Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III v. Supreme Petrochem Limited and the Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No.56/2011, Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara-II v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Company Limited [ 2012 (285) E.L.T. 336 (Guj.)]. The respondents do not allege much less assert that any other period of limitation applies or that short payment was made due to fraud, collusion etc. and, therefore, while following the aforesaid judgments, we find no reason to accept arguments addressed by counsel for the revenue and have no hesitation in holding that period of one year would apply to the present case. In view of what has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
