Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Short Notes

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (7) TMI 629

edly, the appellant has not reversed the interest on the credit. Adjudicating authority vide Order, dated 19.06.2018 has adjusted the sanctioned refund towards the arrears of interest. It is seen that the appellant was not given any personal hearing with regard to adjustment sought to be made by the adjudicating authority. The proceedings were with regard to request for refund of pre deposit only. The learned consultant has adverted attention to the amendments brought forth in Rule 14 of CCR, during the relevant period involved in these two proceedings [refund as well as wrongly availed credit]. The appellant ought to be given a chance to explain as to the liability to pay interest during the period. For verifying the liability/quantificati .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

Shri Senthilnathan appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that in an earlier case, vide Order-in-Original No.11/2013, dated 13.03.2013 the original authority confirmed a demand of ₹ 48,51,589/- (being ineligible input credit) along with interest and imposed penalties. The appellant filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner (Appeals).The appeal was filed belatedly and was rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred. Though the appellant preferred an appeal before CESTAT against such order, the same was dismissed. The said issue with regard to availment of wrong credit of ₹ 48,51,589/- has, therefore, attained finality. The appellant had already reversed this credit of ₹ 48,51,589/-. However, the .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ears. Without quantifying the interest amount, the refund sanctioning authority ought not to have adjusted the amount. He also referred to the amendments that were introduced under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules and submitted that in any case, the liability to pay interest on ₹ 48,51,589/- would be reduced to the period from 03.03.2011 to 16.03.2012 only and the appellant is not liable to pay interest from 17.03.2011 to 31.03.2014. 3. Further, the adjudicating authority has not granted interest upon the sanctioned amount (₹ 25 Lakhs). As per section 35FF, which was introduced from 06.08.2014, the department has to refund the pre-deposit within three months from the decision of the Tribunal. In the present case, the Tribunal pass .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

it also culminated in passing Order-in-Original against them upholding the recovery of the credit along with interest. The appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals)was rejected as being time-barred. The same was upheld by the Tribunal also. Thus, this issue whether credit of ₹ 48,51,589/- is eligible or not has attained finality. Needless to say that the appellant has to reverse the wrongly availed credit along with interest as per Rule 14 of CCR, 2004. Admittedly, the appellant has not reversed the interest on the credit. Adjudicating authority vide Order, dated 19.06.2018 has adjusted the sanctioned refund towards the arrears of interest. It is seen that the appellant was not given any personal hearing with regard to adjustment sou .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||