TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date the CENVAT credit has been utilized wrongly for according to the High Court interest cannot be claimed simply for the reason that the CENVAT credit has been wrongly taken as such availment by itself does not create any liability of payment of excise duty. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Interest on the inadmissible credit for the relevant period is payable by the appellant. However, since the interest was demanded for the period from 2006 to 2007 in 2009, and in absence of any suppression of facts, the demand of interest is barred by limitation - Consequently, penalty imposed under Section 11AC of CEA,1944 is also not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 2191 of 2010 - A/85885/2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od in question, even though the amount was availed as credit but the same has not been utilized; since the department pointed out about the inadmissibility of the credit, they reversed the same. It is her contention that since they have not utilized the credit, therefore interest on the credit amount is not recoverable from them. In support, she has referred to the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Bangalore Vs. Bill Forged Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 204 (Kar.) , Commissioner of Central Excise Madurai Vs. Strategic Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad.). Further, she has submitted that the demand is barred by limitation, hence, the interest is not recoverable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missible CENVAT Credit even though not utilized during the period of availment of credit, penalty equivalent to the credit reversed is imposable. We find that issue of applicability of interest when credit availed but not utilized for the period prior to amendment of Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 is no more res integra as held in favour of the Revenue by the jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of GL V India Ltd. (supra). Their Lordships observed as follows: - 15. In so far as the judgment of the Karnataka High Court is concerned, it appears that the said judgment is delivered by the Karnataka High Court on the facts of the said case. It would be relevant from the facts as stated in the said j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in 2011 (265) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) that the learned Tribunal was not justified in upsetting the order passed by the original authority as upheld by the appellate authority in levying the interest. 6. Following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we are of the view that interest on the inadmissible credit for the relevant period is payable by the appellant. However, since the interest was demanded for the period from 2006 to 2007 in 2009, and in absence of any suppression of facts, the demand of interest is barred by limitation in view of judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. s case(supra). Consequently, penalty imposed under Section 11AC of CEA,1944 is also not susta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
