9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26,811/- along with penalties and the remaining part of the Order-in-Original was upheld. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses falling under Chapter 17 of the CETA, 1985. During the time of audit of the accounts of the appellant by the Departmental officers, certain discrepancies were noticed and accordingly, a show-cause notice dt. 31/01/2018 was issued demanding therein excess cenvat credit of Rs. 72,100/- during March 2014 and Rs. 3,09,375/- during November 2015, CENVAT credit of Rs. 28,29,186/- being wrongly availed credit on Basic Customs duty and cess on customs and Rs. 26,811/- being wrongly availed credit on structural steel items. The demand pertain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) ELT 204 (Tri. Bang.)] iii. Socomac HPL Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III [2009(236) ELT 511 (Tri. Del.)] 4.2. He also submitted that when the audit team of the Department pointed out excess availment of credit to the extent of Rs. 32,10,661/- on capital goods, appellant reversed the same immediately vide Cenvat Entry No.567 dt. 31/03/2017, No.4 dt 30/04/2017, No.544 dt. 31/03/2017 and No.30 dt. 30/06/2017 and intimated the same to the Department. It is his further submission that the appellant having reversed the credit before utilization, the question of payment of interest does not arise in view of the amendment to the provisions of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2015 w.e.f. 01/03/2015. He further argued that even for the period p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of the decision relied upon by the appellant cited supra, the appellant is not liable to pay interest on the excess credit of Rs. 72,100/-. With regard to excess availment of other credit, I find that the appellant has reversed the credit on being pointed out by the audit much before the issuance of the show-cause notice which was issued on 31/01/2018. Further I find that the appellant during the disputed period had sufficient balance in their cenvat credit account and they have not utilized the same. Therefore in view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. cited supra and Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of JK Tyre & Industries Ltd. cited supra, the appellant is not liable to pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
