9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services. The Department during the course of audit of the records of the appellant for the period 2007-08 to 2008-09 observed that appellant has availed cenvat credit of duty paid on capital goods. However, has not paid an amount equal to the cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,03,086/- on clearance of the said capital goods. Rather, suo moto reversed an amount equal to Rs. 1,64,43,045/-. Vide a show cause notice No. 1906 dated 23rd October, 2012, the recovery of the aforesaid cenvat credit of Rs. 6,03,086/- alongwith the recovery of interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,64,43,045/- was proposed alongwith interest at the appropriate rate and the proportionate penalties. The said proposed demand was confirmed as a whole vide Order bearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) In the case of cenvat credit taken (ii) In the case of cenvat utilized (iii) In case of cenvat being erroneously refunded. It is impressed upon that the said decision find basis from the adjudication of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in Civil Appeal No. 1976/2011 reported as 2011 (265) ELT 3 (SC). Thus, there is no infirmity, as alleged, in the impugned order. Appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 7. After hearing both the parties, I observe that the only point for consideration herein is as to whether mere taking of cenvat credit without actually utilizing it would carry the liability of interest/penalty upon the assessee. For the purpose, rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules is relevant which reads as follows:- Rule 14 - Recovery of CENVAT cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the cenvat credit was not availed. The Revenue's plea for assessee to be at liberty to utilize the credit immediately after making the entry was held not sustainable. Post amendment the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case Commissioner, Madurai vs. Strategic Engineering Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014 (310) ELT 509 has held "10. In fact, this Court has perused the entire decision reported in 2012 (26) S.T.R. 204 (Karnataka) (Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Bangalore v. Bill Forge Private Limited) and ultimately found that mere taken of CENVAT credit facilities is not at all sufficient for claiming of interest as well as penalty. 11. It is an admitted fact that Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules as been subsequently amended, where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
