TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Both these Appeals have been filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), challenging the orders dated 22nd September, 2017 and 17th May, 2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). Both the impugned orders deal with an identical issues. 2. The Appeals from the above two orders were admitted on 15th October,2018 and 5th April, 2019 on the following identical question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law was the Tribunal justified in holding that the credit is wrongly taken then mere non-utilization would not lead to waiver of interest? 3 The order dated 15th October, 2018 while admitting Central Excise Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of the Madras High Court in M/s. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd., (supra). It held that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd., (supra) interest would be payable from the date of irregular taking of the Cenvat Credit in terms of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and not dependent on utilization. 6. In view of the above decision of this Court in GL V India Pvt. Ltd., (supra) on 18th April, 2019 , we put both these appeals on board for directions. At that time, we informed the parties that the substantial question of law raised herein seems to be prima facie, concluded in favour of the Respondent-Revenue. Consequently, both the appeals were put on board for final di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the correctness or otherwise of the judgment of the lower forum is put in jeopardy till the Apex Court decides the same. In support, she placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v/s. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., 2004 (164) ELT 375 (SC). 8. It is an undisputed position before us that the decision of the Coordinate Bench in GL V India Pvt. Ltd., (supra) would conclude the issue raised herein in favour of the Respondent-Revenue and against the Appellant-Assessee. In fact, the decision of the Madras High Court in M/s. Strategic Engineering Ltd., (supra) which held that the amendment made to Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on 1st April, 2012 with effect from 17th March, 2012 was clari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Plaintiff to file a suit for recovery commenced. In that context the Court noted in that case, a limited stay of the order of the Tribunal was granted by the Apex Court while admitting the appeal from the Tribunal. It further held that when the Apex Court upheld the view of the Tribunal, the order of the Tribunal merged with the order of the Apex Court dismissing the appeal from the Tribunal. Therefore, till such time the Apex Court decides the appeal, the order of the Tribunal could be said to be jeopardy. Facts here are entirely different. In any case, we are bound by the decision of this Court in GL V India Ltd., (supra) which is not shown to have been challenged in appeal. Therefore, not even remotely in jeopardy. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
