9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3(4) in as much as the entire amount of credit as required under the amended provision was not reversed initially. For such contravention which was not on account of fraud, mis-statement, collusion etc. penalty reduced - E/129-130/2007 - 132-133/2012 - Dated:- 10-2-2012 - Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. Heard both sides in respect of both these appeals. A. No. E/129/2007 2. The Ld. Advocate Shri M. Karthikeyan, appearing for the appellants states that in this case the appellants took 100% credit in respect of capital goods in the first year, whereas under the Rules they were eligible to take only 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has considered the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. (supra) and has come to a conclusion that in a case where the wrongly availed credit was reversed without utilization, no interest would be chargeable. 5. In the present case, it is a fact that the appellants had reversed the credit, which was wrongly taken before utilization as stated by the Ld. Advocate. However, I also find in the case of Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court dealt with a similar case where the credit was wrongly taken and as recorded in para 4, the entire amount was also paid back. Hence, I find no difference in the fact, situation between the present case and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble on the transaction value which was paid by the appellants. But there was a change of Rule subsequently for reversal of equal amount of credit, which the appellants have done before issue of show cause notice on being pointed out. 7. In this case, I find that initially credit was taken and hence this is not a case of wrong availment of credit. In a case of payment of differential amount under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, there appears to be no provision of charging of interest nor is the Ld. DR able to show any such provision. Hence, I am of the view that no interest is chargeable in this case though the lower appellate authority has come to the same conclusion for a different reason. 8. As regards the penal liability, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
