TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10/09/2009 accepting the lapse on their part but failed to pay applicable interest on the excess credit availed - In the present case, the Appellant reversed the credit in September 2009 but since failed to discharge the interest of the same, consequently, within a period of one year, the interest was demanded from the Appellant by issuing a notice to the Appellant. Hence, the demand for interest is not barred by limitation. Levy of penalty equivalent to the amount of Cenvat Credit reversed - HELD THAT:- It is not warranted in the facts of the circumstances of the present case as it was a bona fide mistake of carrying forward excess credit as on 01/09/2008 on account of switching over from ERP to SAP system. There is no other allegatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show-cause notice on 09/04/2010 for recovery of the same with proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the amount of Cenvat credit reversed was confirmed and appropriated, demand of interest of ₹ 4,10,480/- was confirmed and penalty of equal amount of credit was imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals), who in turn, rejected their Appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the Learned Advocate for the Appellant Shri Chitnis has submitted that due to clerical error and while changing their accounting software system from ERP to SAP, w.e.f 01/09/2008, the closing balance of Cenvat credit as on 31/05/2018 which was opening balance of September 2008, an amount of ₹ 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit availed by them was reversed on 10/09/2009. But, since they failed to discharge interest applicable on the excess amount of credit availed for a period of almost one year, demand notice was issued to them on 09/04/2010, that is then one year from the date of payment of duty, hence the demand is within time. It is his contention that since they continue to avail excess credit by suppressing the facts in the era on self-assessment system, therefore equivalent penalty has rightly been imposed by the authorities below on the Appellants. Further, he has submitted that the judgment cited by the learned Advocate namely Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU [2013(297) ELT 332 (Del.)] also Commissioner of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposition of penalty. It is the plea of the Appellant that the recovery of interest from the Appellant is barred by limitation, which in my opinion, is devoid of merit and substance, hence cannot be sustained. In advancing their argument of time bar, the Appellant relied on the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in Hindustan Insecticide Ltd(Supra). I find that the submission of the Learned AR for the Revenue in this regard distinguishing the said judgment in its applicability to the facts of the present case, is acceptable. In Hindustan Insecticide Ltd. s case (supra) even thought the differential duty was paid on 2003 but the interest was demanded much after i.e. three to four years from the date of payment of the differentia duty. In s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
