9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 24/2009 dt. 6-7-2009. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants during the year 2005-06 2006-07 have availed cenvat credit on various inputs received in damaged conditions for which they have claimed insurance. The in eligible credit they availed was Rs. 5,41,788/- which they reversed during October, 2006. It appeared that they had contravened Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by availing ineligible credit and they had contravened Rue 14 of the rules by not discharging the liability of interest. Hence, a show cause notice was issued proposing appropriation of the reversed amount and demanding interest on it and penalty under Rule 15(1) of the Rules. The issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verned by the provisions of limitation as envisaged in the Act. 4. Ld. SDR on the other hand would reiterate the decision of the Principal Bench in the case of CCE, Ghaziabad v. K.L. Concast (P) Ltd. [2007(209) E.L.T. 425 (Tri.-Del.)] to submit that interest liability will be applicable and there is no time limit prescribed for effecting recovery of interest under the provisions of the Central Excise Act. He would reiterate the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I have considered the submission made at length by both sides and perused the records. It is undisputed that the appellant had taken the credit of the duty paid on inputs on proper documents. It is also undisputed that the entire inputs on which the credit was availe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been raised without any allegation of fraud, suppression of facts etc." While coming to such conclusion, the Bench relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CC, Madras v. T.V.S. Whirlpool Ltd. [1996 (86) E.L.T. 144] which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported at 2000 (119) E.L.T. A177 (S.C.). Further, it is seen from the show cause notice that the lower authorities have not invoked the provisions of Section 11AB for imposition of interest on the appellant and had only invoked the provisions of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. As I have already held that provisions of Rule 14 cannot be invoked and as the appellant has taken the cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs, which was not in his knowledge a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
