Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, Central Excise

[ASIT ROY]

I have a case with CESTAT, E Zone Bench, Kolkata regarding the CENVAT Credit Wrongly taken, where a interest demand has been made by the Adjudication. The case was Call on by the Hon'ble Member of the Bench, but the case has been presently reschedule on 16.09.2016

I need the latest case laws regarding the matter

Posts / Replies

[Rajagopalan Ranganathan]

Sir,

Please elaborate the issue involved. Then only any opinion and/oe relevant case law can be cited.

[Rajagopalan Ranganathan]

Sir,

Please elaborate the issue involved. Then only any opinion and/or relevant case law can be cited.

[CS SANJAY MALHOTRA]

Dear Mr. Asit,

If you are able to cite evidence that the CENVAT Credit wrongly taken has been paid from CENVAT account and further the balance at any given point of time in CENVAT account stands always higher than the cenvat reversal amount, only then interest amount can be waived. If the credit wrongly availed has been accepted and paid from PLA account, then you have to pay Interest also.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Sh.Asit Roy Ji,

In support of the views of Sh.CS Sanjay Malhotra, Sir, here is a case law:-

2016 (8) TMI 6 - CESTAT HYDERABAD M/s B. Girijapathi Reddy & Company Versus CCE, Guntur (Vice-Versa)

 

[KASTURI SETHI]

CREDIT TAKEN BUT NOT UTILISED AND REVERSED AMOUNTS TO CREDIT NOT TAKEN-S.C.

2007 (215) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 2007 (8) TMI 2 - Supreme Court COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-I Versus BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD.

[YAGAY AND SUN]

Leviability of Interest on the CENVAT credit which was availed wrongly but reversed without utilization shall depend at which time period it was wrongly availed since law was different at different time periods.

[CS SANJAY MALHOTRA]

Dear Sh. Kasturi ji,

Thanks for the citations. Very informative. placed same in my records..

[KASTURI SETHI]

Sh.CS Sanjay Malhotra Ji,

Sir, I have followed your habit to keep the records of every judgement, especially, on the controversial issue. Only availability of time is the question.

Regards.

K.L.SETHI

[KASTURI SETHI]

Sh.Asit Roy Ji,

I agree 100% with the views of M/s. YAGAY AND SUN. Time period has a great relevance in following/relying upon any case law.In this case the judgement of the Supreme Court is evergreen and can be very helpful to you.

[ASIT ROY]

Sir,

Thanks to all of you for your extrem support:

Fact of my cases as follows:

We had wrongly taken CENVAT credit of ₹ 22,785.00 (Rupees twenty-two thousand seven hundred and eighty-five only) & ₹ 45,855.00 (Rupees forty-five thousand eight hundred fifty-five only) on Clearing & Forwarding Charges and Port charges as input services during the financial year 2005-06 & 2006-07 respectively due to ignorance. But we did not utilized it at any time & at any where upto the date of its reversal/payment and although the adjudication authority issued a ‘Notice cum Demand Notice No. 17/SCN/BST/2009-10 dt. 05.06. 2009 in context of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the former Ld. ACCE, Mr. P. L. Lenka, Barasat Division was hared us very carefully and waives us from such liabilities vide O-I-O No. 41/BST/AC/Adjn/2009-10 dt. 29.09.2009.

But the Ld. CCE, Kol-III Commissionerate does not satisfy with such order and authorized to Mr. B. K. Pattanaik, ACCE, Barasat Division, Kol-III Commissionerate to file a departmental appeal before Ld. CCE (Appeal-I), Kolkata in context of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 897/17/2009-CX dt. 03.09.2009(Copy of the Circular is enclosed herewith as ‘ANNEXURE-9’). The Ld. CCE (Appeal-I) Kolkata personal hared us on 23.02.2011 and a Hon’ble Tribunal’s Decision of M/s. DELPHI TVS DIESEL SYSTEMS LTD Vs. CCE, CHENNAI ( Appeal No. E/123/2010 ) = 2010 (7) TMI 1018 - CESTAT CHENNAI  was produced before the Ld. CCE (Appeal-I) Kolkata and requested to dismiss the appeal. But unfortunately, the Ld. CCE (Appeal-I) dismissed our request since he didn’t not properly observe the aforesaid case history and accordingly he disclosed in his order the said Board’s Circular No. 897/17/2009-CX dt. 03.09.2009 was not produced/brought to the notice of Hon’ble Bench of Tribunal, Chennai.

And as such he dismiss our appeal and directed to collect the interest. Hence we have filed an appeal before the CESTAT, E. Zone Bench, Kolkata and the matter is pending still pending before the Hon'ble CESTAT,E Zone Bench, Kolkata.

Now we able to know the matter was called on due to their some similar case regarding J. K. Tyres 2007 (5) TMI 246 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA with Hon'bel Supreme Court and our query regarding the case history, if any, or any other similar recent case with the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

with thanks further and awaiting for you opinion.

[KASTURI SETHI]

2016 (9) TMI 133 - CESTAT BANGALORE Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, Bangalore