9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder]. - 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 50% of the credit. On this being pointed out, the appellants have reversed 50% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 184 (S.C.). 4. I have considered the detailed submissions from both sides. In the case of C.C.E., Mumbai v. Bombay Dyeing & MFG. Co. Ltd. - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that reversal of credit before utilization was as good as not taking the credit in the context of applying the exemption under Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. However, I find that in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se 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 the case of Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. in so far as the wrong availment of credit and subsequent reversal/pay back in the context of the issue of charging of interest. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermine a penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Rule 13(1) instead of Rs. 10,000/- adjudged as penalty by the original authority. A. No. E/130/2007 6. The ld. Advocate states that the issue involved in this appeal is chargeability of interest in respect of differential amount paid for inputs removed as such. This case is covered by Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, as applicable at the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ason. 8. As regards the penal liability, the case would be covered under the provision of Rule 13(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 as there is a contravention of Rule 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., I determine a penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
