9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 624 - AT - Central ExciseInterpretation of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The appellant has no valid grounds to resist the demand of interest - Word or appearing between the expressions taken and utilized in the text of Rule 14 could not be read as and - for levy of interest on an amount of CENVAT credit wrongly taken and subsequently reversed, non-utilization of such credit is immaterial - Whether or not utilized, CENVAT credit in question would carry interest under Rule 14 from the date of taking to the date of reversal Following UOI and Ors. Versus Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. 2011 (2) TMI 6 - Supreme Court - The appellant is directed to pre-deposit the entire amount of interest as pre-deposit Stay not granted.
Issues:
1. Waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery for interest demanded under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. 2. Penalty imposed under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Analysis: 1. The appellant sought waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery for an interest amount of Rs. 66,979/- demanded under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The appellant had taken excess CENVAT credit irregularly before October 2008, which was later reversed in October 2008 upon realization of the mistake. A show-cause notice was issued for recovery of interest on the irregularly taken CENVAT credit. The appellant argued against the demand of interest, citing a judgment that stated no liability for interest exists if the credit was not utilized until its reversal. However, the respondent relied on another judgment that clarified interest is applicable regardless of credit utilization. The tribunal held that the apex court's judgment applies to the case without any distinction and directed the appellant to predeposit the interest amount within six weeks. 2. The penalty of Rs. 4,47,829/- was imposed under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The tribunal granted waiver and stay of the penalty subject to the appellant's compliance with predeposit of the interest amount. The decision was pronounced in open court, emphasizing the binding nature of the apex court's ruling under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The appellant was instructed to report compliance to the Dy. Registrar by a specified date, with subsequent reporting to the Bench.
|
