9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. 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 issue was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner vide OIO No. 09/2009 dt. 27-1-2009 and the amount reversed was appropriated interest of Rs. 66,766/- was demanded but the proceedings for imposition of penalty was dropped. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant filed an appeal before the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 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 availed was received in the factory premises. The damaged condition of the input on which they have availed cenvat credit was noticed by the appellant when the containers were brought into factory premises. It is also undisputed that the appellant had subsequently on segregation from some dama ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 as damaged, till the inputs were inspected and reversed the amount on being directed by the Revenue authorities, as the inputs which could not be used, hence to my mind the demand of interest on such amount of reversed credit is not sustainable. 8. Accordingly, I find that the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
