2013 (4) TMI 536

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... without filing of any refund claim. Thus the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not proper and therefore set aside the same and restore the adjudication order. The appeal filed by Revenue is allowed.
Shri Mathew John, J. For the Appellant: Shri Parmod Kumar, JC (AR) For the Respondent: Ms. Sridevi, Advocate JUDGEMENT 1. The respondent is a manufacturer who also avails the benefit of Cenvat credit scheme. During audit of the records filed by the respondent with Range office, it was found that they had taken certain ineligible Cenvat credit during the months of April 07 and July 07 to the tune of Rs.6,34,497/- in respect of 29 invoices. The Superintendent pointed out this discrepancy to the respondent. The respondent reversed an a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... authority gave a finding which is reproduced below :- In respect of deduction of interest of Rs.1,24,571/- pending realization from the claimant, the reply submitted by the claimant is not correct for the reasons that the claimant has voluntarily reversed the wrongly taken cenvat credit. As per the provisions/instructions, whatever excess cenvat credit taken to be reversed along with the appropriate interest and whatever, the credit taken in short as against the actual credit, they may take balance credit if eligible. There is no provision to adjust the credit wrongly reversed towards the short cenvat credit taken. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,24,571/- is liable for deduction from the rebate to be sanctioned. Further, in the order adjudicat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... adjudicating authority but at the instance of the audit team and Range Superintendent. Further she argued that if interest is to be demanded, it has to be decided whether the amount was to be reversed at all. They have raised the dispute of wrong reversal of credit because interest has been demanded. Revenue has not issued any SCN for wrong reversal done in 2009. She also submits that there is no argument from Revenue that the claim is time-barred. She further argues that department has not argued the appeal on merits of the reversal of the credit. 7. I have considered the submissions on both sides. I find that the issue relating to wrong credit was taken up by the department by issue of simple letter and assessee-respondent reversed the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X