9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not have been levied from that date looks logical, unfortunately unless the CENVAT credit available in the books is debited, legally it cannot be said that the service tax has been paid. The actual debit in the CENVAT account took place only in November 2008 and the question that arises is whether the appellant is liable to pay interest for two years on this portion of the amount. Unfortunatel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment approached them for recovery, they came to know the above order and thereafter the appeal was filed in April 2013. Therefore, he submits that strictly going by the date of receipt of the order, there is no delay. We find that the claim of the appellant regarding delay is valid and accordingly we condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2. The appellant along with some other company formed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount. Thereafter proceedings were initiated by the Department alleging suppression of facts and proposing to appropriate the amounts paid by the appellant, demand differential interest and also imposed penalty which has culminated into the impugned order wherein the entire amount of service tax paid by the appellant has been appropriated and interest of Rs.88,46,007/- has been demanded. Penaltie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax which arose in 2006 and upto 2008, the interest liability will be only Rs.25 lakhs which they have deposited. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. Even though the claim of the appellant that CENVAT credit was available in the books and therefore interest could not have been levied from that date looks logical, unfortunately unless the CENVAT credit available in the book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
