9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directly to MOD, the appellants took the view that their clearances are not exempted under Notification No.63/95 dt 16.3.1995. Vide letter dated 4.3.2010 addressed to Asst Commissioner/ they intimated that goods would be cleared to BEL on payment of excise duty and accordingly they will be availing cenvat credit. They started taking the cenvat credit from September 2010 onwards. Some of the inputs were required to be sent on job-work basis to the job workers. The appellants followed the procedure set under Rule 4 (5a) of sending the inputs under job-work challans. When the inputs sent for job-work were not returned by the job-worker within 180 days, the appellants reversed the Cenvat credit as specified under Rule 4 (5a). Such reversals we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 72.4.2011), in the month of March 2011. The excise duty of Rs.90,94,857/- paid by the appellants was sought to be appropriated against the Cenvat reversal demand. (Page 119). The Adjudicating authority held that the allegation of suppression does not sustain in view of the factual evidence and accordingly dropped the proposed penalty under Section 11 AC. He confirmed the demand towards interest on the Cenvat credit taken. 4. The matter before us is whether the appellant is liable to pay interest or not. After hearing both sides for some time and going through the facts on record, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of. Before we proceed, we want to make it clear that this is a very peculiar case and needs a holistic consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circumstances, the only question arises whether in terms of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant can be said to have taken credit wrongly. When the credit was not taken wrongly, the question of payment of interest does not arise. In this case, the circumstances discussed above show that the appellant could not have acted any other way than the way they did. In the circumstances, holding that credit was not admissible and was taken without eligibility and therefore asking them to pay interest was not correct. Moreover, any assessee, if he has any doubt, has a right to ask the department and such action is not contrary to the provisions of law. Further, in the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
