TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to them. Hence, they are not contesting for an amount of ₹ 4,15,822/-. Accordingly, the demand of ₹ 4,15,822/- is upheld. Demand of Interest - Held that:- The appellant have not utilized the credit of ₹ 4,15,822/- as they have maintained the credit balance approx. ₹ 40 lakhs during the relevant period - In terms of amended rule 14 of CCR, 2004 with effect from 01/04/2012, the interest is chargeable only in case the assessee avail and utilize the credit - demand of interest not sustainable. Penalty - Held that:- There is no suppression of fact or malafide intention on part of the appellant. Moreover, even though services on which the appellant have conceded the demand, the issue appears to be debatable - pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed by this Tribunal, the penalty should not be imposed. He also submits that the demand was raised in the normal period of one year. Therefore, there is no case of invoking suppression of fact, fraud, collusion, etc. 2. Shri Amit Kumar Mishra, Ld. Dy. Commissioner (A.R.), appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 3. I have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that on the same services this tribunal has already taken a decision in the appellant s own case in the order no. A/13246/2017 dated 10.07.2017 wherein the tribunal has passed the following order: Heard both sides. 2. This is an appeal filed against OIA No. CCESA-VAD-APP-II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dani Port Special Economic Zone Vs. CST Ahmedabad 2016 (42) STR 1010(Tri.- Ahmd.) (iii)Repairs and Maintenance Service - Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, PUNE-I 2012 (276) ELT 94 (Tri-Mumbai) (iv) Advertisement Membership Service Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy vs. Sas Company 2010 (258) ELT 253 (Tri.-Chennai). (v) Courier Service - M/s Haldyn Glass Ltd vs. CCE ST- Vadodara II Vide Final Order No. A/11924-11951/2017 dt. 30.06.2017 (Tri.- Ahd.) (vi) Insurance Premiums Service Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax (LTU), Mumbai 2016 (45) STR 383(Tri-Mum). 4. The Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect from 01/04/2012, the interest is chargeable only in case the assessee avail and utilize the credit. Therefore, even though the wrong credit was availed but if it is not utilized, interest is not chargeable. Therefore, I set aside the demand of interest. As regard submission on waiver of penalty, I find that Show Cause Notice was issued for normal period and major amount of CENVAT credit under dispute was allowed. I also find that there is no suppression of fact or malafide intention on part of the appellant. Moreover, even though services on which the appellant have conceded the demand, the issue appears to be debatable. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire fact of the case, the appellant is not liable for any penalty. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
