9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 298 - AT - Central ExciseWhether the appellant are required to reverse interest on the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant, during the period April 2008 to July 2011? - Held that - this issue of recovery of interest on the Cenvat credit availed, but, not utilized had been considered by this Tribunal in the case of CCE & ST, Surat Vs. Atul Limited 2017 (4) TMI 217-CESTAT Ahmedabad , whereunder analysing the principles of law settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court, this Tribunal came to the conclusion that interest would be leviable on the inadmissible credit even if not utilized - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues involved: Appeal against the order regarding the reversal of interest on Cenvat credit availed by the appellant between April 2008 to July 2011.
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) of Central Excise Ahmedabad-i. The central issue in this case is whether the appellant is obligated to reverse interest on the Cenvat credit availed between April 2008 to July 2011. The appellant had initially reversed an interest amount of ?24,85,186 upon the department's audit findings of inadmissible credit availed during the mentioned period. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim for the same amount, contending that since they did not utilize the credit during that period, they should not be liable to pay interest. However, the refund claim was rejected, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was also dismissed. The appellant then approached the Tribunal for redressal. The Tribunal referred to a previous case, CCE & ST, Surat Vs. Atul Limited, where the issue of recovery of interest on Cenvat credit, even if not utilized, was deliberated. Following an analysis of legal principles established by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal upheld that interest would indeed be leviable on inadmissible credit, irrespective of its utilization. Consequently, the impugned order was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. ---
|
