2016 (11) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... present appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner dated 18.12.2012 confirming the demand of interest amounting to Rs. 5,74,362/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Two only) under provisions of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AB/11AA of the Central Excise Act and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rmed the demand. Hence the present appeal. 2.  After hearing both sides I find that the issue involved in the present case is no more res intera and is settled in favour of the appellant by a decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE &ST., LTU, Bangalore Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (2379) ELT 209 (Kar.)] and also in the case of CCE Madurai Vs. Strategic Engineering ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. (supra) constituted the law governing and operative on the facts and transaction in the current appeal. Since the appellant had merely availed the credit and reversed the same before utilizing the availed credit for remittance of duty, interest liability would not arise.  On the other hand, learned A.R reiterated the findi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X