9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking credit as well as collecting the amounts from their buyers - adjudicating authority is not correct - appellants have already paid the disputed amount which shows their bona fides. When there is no suppression of fact imposition of penalty under rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not warranted. - E/175 OF 2009 - 655 OF 2010 - Dated:- 9-3-2010 - M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 86/2008(H-III)CE, dated 28-11-2008. 2. The issue involved in this case is that the respondents herein have availed benefit of Cenvat credit on the inputs and input services. During the course of verification of records, it was found that the respondent had taken Cenvat credit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tilized. In view of this, it appears that the Order-in-Appeal setting aside the interest demanded by the Original Adjudicating Authority on the wrong credit availment is not legally correct. Further, Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Precot Mills Ltd. 2007 (212) ELT 483 (Trib. - Chennai) held that as per the statutory provisions— "where the Cenvat credit is taken or utilized wrongly, the same along with interest shall be recovered from the manufacturer". "We find that as per the statutory provisions it is mandatory that when Cenvat credit has been taken wrongly, the same shall be recovered with interest. In view of the unambiguous mandate of the law, the Commissioner's order not demanding interest as per rules is incorrect. In the circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not eligible to avail Cenvat Credit Rules of service tax paid on the services as mentioned hereinabove. He also held that the entire demand is hit by limitation. Coming to such conclusion, he recorded the following findings :— "7. So far as limitation aspect is concerned, as per section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 notice to be given within normal period of one year. Longer period can be invoked in case of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. In the instant case, the appellants contend that the fact of taking credit of service tax paid on the above services was reflected in their ER-1 returns. They further contend that they have clarified their position to the Range Officer, vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
