9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be warranted - the requirement of pre-deposit of interest demand and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal - Stay granted. - Appeal No.E/58041/2013-SM - Stay Order No.59206/2013 - Dated:- 16-8-2013 - Mr. Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant : Ms. Charnaya Laxmi Kumaran, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A.K. Dixit, AR ORDER Per Rakesh Kumar: The appellant are manufacturers of automobile parts. Earlier, the appellant were maintaining the account of their cenvat credit availed inputs and of finished products on Tally System. However, from April, 2010, they started change over to Oracle based ERP System. With effect from July, 2010, they started maintaining their accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led along with stay application. 2. Heard both sides in respect of stay application. 3. Ms. Charanya Laxmi Kumaran, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that excess credit of Rs.1,15,51,318/- got taken in course of transition from Tally System to ERP System, that as soon as that the appellant realized their mistake, the excess credit was reversed in December, 2010, that in view of this, the demand of interest on this amount is not correct, that in any case, the interest demand pertains to the period from April, 2010 to December, 2010 and the show cause notice was issued on 7.3.2012 and, therefore, the same is time barred, as in terms of the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. (supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11A is applicable for recovery of interest on wrongly taken cenvat credit or not. On this basis, I find that Delhi High court in the case of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. reversing the Tribunal’s judgement reported in 2012 (286) ELT 208 (Tribunal-Delhi) has held that limitation period as prescribed in Section 11A would be applicable for recovery of interest also. It is also seen that Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of EMCO Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2011-TIOL-1585-CESTAT-MUM has also held that recovery of interest on duty is subject to limitation period prescribed under Section 11 A and this judgement of the Tribunal had also been upheld by the Bombay High Court. I find that same view has been taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
