2016 (12) TMI 853

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nasmuch as it has been issued after the period of 1 year prescribed for demand of duty under Section11A. Perusal of Section 11 A, as it stood at relevant time, reveals that it did not specifically provide for recovery of interest. In the case laws cited by the appellant EMCO LTD. vs. Commissioner of C. EX., Mumbai [2011 (6) TMI 567 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], it has been held that the period of limitation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8.2016. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of CI casting and Engine parts. The dispute is with reference to Cenvat Credit availed on certain input services on various dates during the period June, 2005 to March, 2008. Revenue was of the view that such credits taken were not admissible. The appellant reversed all such credits on different dates. However, vide Show Cause Notice dated 18.12. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . He has also cited the following two judgments in their favour wherein it has been held that the limitation period for demand of duty also would be applicable for demand of interest below:- 1) EMCO LTD. vs. Commissioner of C. EX., Mumbai 2011(272) E.L.T. 136 (Tri. - Mumbai). 2) CEAT LTD. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III 2012 (275) E.L.T. 433 (Tri. - Mumbai). 4. It i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X