9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f notification. In the absence of the clarification from the department, they took CENVAT credit during the intervening period September 2010 to March 2011. They had to take cenvat credit in September, 2010 since some of the job workers did not return all the inputs within 180 days and they had to reverse the credit. To reverse the credit, they had to take credit. When there was no clarification received from the department till March, 2011, the assessee had no option but to clear two consignments in March 2011 on payment of excise duty of ₹ 90,94,851/- by utilising the Cenvat credit. On getting the clarification from TRU in April 2011, the appellant reversed the entire amount of Cenvat credit. Appellant could not have acted any ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey 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 were reflected in the monthly ER 1 Returns. When BEL told the appellant that the duty exemption should be applicable even for the supplies between the Units specified under Notification No.63/95, the appellant approached the Departmental officials seeking necessary clarification. Details of correspondence between appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly 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 consideration of the whole facts and circumstances. It is a case where the appellant did not take credit instead they sought clarification from the department about the eligibility on exemption Notification. 5. Learned Authorised Representative submits that while TRU issued clarification about the eligibilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w 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 had been taken by the appellant wrongly. When credit is not taken wrongly, question of payment of interest does not arise in terms of provisions of rule 14 of CCR 2004. In these circumstances, we do not find that the appellant is liable to pay interest since credit taken by them is not wrong in the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
