9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing credit of 50% was admissible to them in the next financial year. It is correct that Appellant was eligible to take 50% Cenvat Credit on Ingot Moulds in the next financial year but taking of 100% credit in the very first year was improper in view of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Appellant has utilized credit of ₹ 1,44,669/- in the very first year which was paid on being pointed out by the department. Appellant has, therefore, utilized the amount of ₹ 1,44,669/- from the date of taking Cenvat Credit till it was reversed/paid. This act of utilizing this amount without the authority of law, will attract interest of ₹ 6,759/- as calculated by the Adjudicating Authority. Imposition of penalty - Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time never prescribed payment of interest. With respect to imposition of penalty it was argued by Ld. Consultant that the entire inadmissible Cenvat Credit was reversed, therefore, penalty imposed is not justified. He relied upon the case law of CCE, Mumbai-II vs. FIAT India Pvt. Ltd.[2009 (92) RLT 481 (CESTAT-Mum) and CCE, Rohtak vs. Surya Vinayak Industries Pvt. Ltd.[2007(215) E.L.T.423 (Tri.-Del.)] 3. Sri A.Roy, Suptd.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that interest on improperly taken credit is chargeable from the date of taking excess credit to the date of payment as quantified in the adjudication order. That penalty upon the Appellant is also justified because credit on Ingot Moulds was required to be restricted to 50% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt without the authority of law, will attract interest of ₹ 6,759/- as calculated by the Adjudicating Authority under Order-in-Original dated 27.10.2010. 5. So far as imposition of penalty upon the Appellant is concerned it is observed that penalty of only ₹ 2,000/- has been imposed upon the Appellant under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Ld. AR has relied upon the case law of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Guntur (Supra) where under similar circumstances it is held that penalty is imposable. It is also observed that there was no ambiguity in the interpretation of the relevant Cenvat Credit Rules that only 50% of the total Cenvat Credit admissible can be taken in the first year of receipt of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
