TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been taken. Rule 14(1)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provides that where the CENVAT Credit had been taken wrongly but not utilized, the same shall be recovered under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 as the case may be. Further Rule 14(1)(ii) provides that where CENVAT Credit has been taken and utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded the same shall be recovered along with interest - there is clear distinction made in the statute that interest is to be recovered only in case of utilization of CENVAT Credit taken wrongly. Further admitted fact of the present case is that the appellant had given cogent explanation that the excess credit occurred due to sys ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utside India. Accordingly, the Appellant claimed CENVAT credit of the input services based on the invoices issued by the input service providers. b. BACPL had inadvertently taken inadmissible CENVAT credit of INR 3,85,40,267 in the month of October 2009. Such error occurred due to a technical fault in the accounting software. c. Subsequently, such error was discovered by the Appellant in February 2011, and the Appellant suo moto undertook the following: i. The Appellant reversed the inadmissible CENVAT credit in the CENVAT credit register; ii. The Appellant revised the original ST-3 return filed for the period April 2011 to September 2011 on 13 February 2012 to rectify the error. iii. The Appellant filed for reduction in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd not utilized for payment of any output tax liability. f. Despite the clarification provided during the EA 2000 audit and vide the reply filed on 7 March 2014, the Audit Authorities included the observation pertaining to availment of inadmissible CENVAT credit in the Final Audit Report No. 84/13-14 dated 4 March 2014 ( Final Audit Report ) issued to the Appellant on 10 April 2014. g. Consequently, the Appellant filed a reply to Final Audit Report on 15 May 2014 issued by the Audit Authorities providing clarifications for each of the findings included in the Final Audit Report. h. Inspite of the submissions made by the Appellant to the Audit Authorities, SCN dated 11.06.2014 was issued alleging that the Appellants availed inadmiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied the claim by reversing the CENVAT Credit under intimation to Revenue in February 2011, and the show-cause notice was issued in August 2014, is also time barred and no case of any contumacious conducts like suppression or falsification of record is made out. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefit. 5. Learned AR for the Revenue relies on the impugned order and further relies on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ind-Swift Laboratories-2012 (25) STR 184 (SC). 6. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the impugned order is under the teeth of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per the law laid down in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
