9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of interest has been confirmed alongwith penalty. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a service provider. They procured certain capital goods during the period October, 2008 to September, 2009 and availed credit thereon. An audit was conducted in March, 2010, it was pointed out that they have take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to pay interest and no penalty is imposable. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of GTL Infrastructure Limited vs. CST, Mumbai-2015 (37) STR 577 (Tri.-Mum). 4. It is his submission that the audit was conducted in March, 2010 and reversed the credit, therefore, show cause notice dated 10.12.2012 is barred by limitation. 5. On the other hand, Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case are not in dispute that the audit was conducted in March, 2010 and inadmissible credit was reversed on 31.3.2010. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 10.12.2012 by invoking the extended period of limitation. 8. After hearing the appellant, the sole issue arise is whether the interest is payable by the appellant on reversal of credit which was taken but not util ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re Limited (supra) has taken a view that in case where the credit is taken earlier has been reversed without utilizing the same, in that circumstance, no interest is payable. Therefore, in view of the decision of this Tribunal, I hold that the appellant is not liable to pay interest. 11. Another argument advanced by Ld. AR that the appellant has admitted interest liability vide letter dated 1.10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
