9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 631 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of interest - Whether the appellant is liable to pay interest amount of Rs. 2,375/- on the Cenvat credit availed by them improperly on the basis of Xerox copies of bill of entry and whether the appellant is liable to penalties under rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - appellant had reversed the Cenvat credit on 04.12.2008, as soon as it was pointed out by the audit party. It is also on record that the said reversal was kept informed by the appellant to the authorities - there are various decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Emco Limited vs. CCE, Mumbai 2011 (6) TMI 567 - CESTAT, MUMBAI and CEAT Limited vs. CCE, Mumbai 2011 (10) TMI 235 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , wherein it has been held that for demanding interest also, the revenue authorities have to issue the notice within period of limitation. In the case in hand, as reproduce above, the reversal was in 2008 while the show cause notice was issue in 2010, which according to me is blatantly time bared - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Liability to pay interest on improperly availed Cenvat credit 2. Liability to penalties under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 3. Issuance of show cause notice within the limitation period Analysis: Issue 1: Liability to pay interest on improperly availed Cenvat credit The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, availed Cenvat credit based on a Xerox copy of a bill of entry. Upon audit scrutiny, it was found that the appellant had availed credit improperly and had not paid the interest on the wrongly availed credit. The show cause notice was issued for recovery of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority ordered the recovery of interest and imposed a penalty under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant appealed against this order, arguing that the notice was time-barred as the reversal of credit was done in 2008, while the notice was issued in 2010. The appellate tribunal, citing precedents, held that the notice issued after a significant time lapse was time-barred, and therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay interest on the improperly availed credit. Issue 2: Liability to penalties under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 The adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty on the appellant under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. However, the appellate tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case regarding the penalty as the appeal was disposed of based on the question of limitation. Therefore, no findings were recorded on the merits of the penalty imposed. Issue 3: Issuance of show cause notice within the limitation period The crucial aspect of the case revolved around the timeliness of the show cause notice issued to demand interest and impose penalties. The tribunal, relying on previous decisions, emphasized that revenue authorities must issue notices within the limitation period. In this case, the reversal of credit occurred in 2008, while the show cause notice was issued in 2010, rendering it time-barred. As a result, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as necessary. In conclusion, the appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order due to the time-barred nature of the show cause notice for demanding interest and penalties, without delving into the merits of the penalty imposed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
|
