9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of interest does not arise. In this context, it is also pertinent to note that the credit reversed by Unit-I is undisputedly available to Unit-II. Both the units are owned by the appellant. Hence it cannot be reasonably presumed that Unit-I had any intention to evade payment of duty through irregular availment and utilization of CENVAT credit. The finding of the original authority that what was done by Unit-I during the period of dispute could, at best, be an unintended error without mala fides appears to be reasonable - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/2723/2010 - 527/2011 - Dated:- 19-8-2011 - Shri P.G. Chacko, J. Shri K. Parameswaran, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Sabrina Cano, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) was dropping of demand of interest on the CENVAT credit in question. The review order passed earlier by the Commissioner also indicates this fact. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), however proceeded to examine other issues also. His proceedings culminated in the following order : I set aside the order-in-original no. 10/2010 dated 11/12-5-2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, IV Division, Bangalore. I disallow the irregularly availed Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 3,71,444/- under the provisions of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The credit amount so reversed by M/s. Sharavathy Conductors (P) Ltd. vide Entry No. 194 dated 18-9-2008 in their C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the proposed levy is illegal as it is against the mandate of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as interpreted by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in Central Excise Appeal No. 76 of 2008 [Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II v. M/s. Gokaldas Images (P) Ltd. - 2012 (28) S.T.R. 214 (Kar.) = 2012 (278) E.L.T. 590 (Kar.)]. The learned Counsel has also relied on certain decisions of this Tribunal. 4. Per contra, the learned DR submits that Rule 14 ibid was considered in a similar context by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. [2011 (265) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] wherein it has been held by the Apex Court to the effect that Rule 14 mandated that interest be paid on CENVAT cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en at all by the appellant and hence the question of payment of interest does not arise. In this context, it is also pertinent to note that the credit reversed by Unit-I is undisputedly available to Unit-II. Both the units are owned by the appellant. Hence it cannot be reasonably presumed that Unit-I had any intention to evade payment of duty through irregular availment and utilization of CENVAT credit. The finding of the original authority that what was done by Unit-I during the period of dispute could, at best, be an unintended error without mala fides appears to be reasonable. That this finding was not specifically challenged by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) is another fact which looms large in this case. 5. The learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
