2017 (5) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n 11A(2B) requesting department not to issue any show cause notice. No show cause notice was issued. Subsequently on 28-5-2005 appellant realized that capital goods used in manufacture of final product on job work basis is not treated as exempted goods as the job work was done under Notification No.214/86-CE and principle manufacturer is discharging excise duty, accordingly they have taken re-credit on 28-5-2005. As regard the interest, since it was paid in cash they have filed refund claim for interest of Rs. 1,12,747/- under Section 11B. However, the same was rejected by the Asst. Commissioner by Order-in-Original No.PVI/Rebate/25/CEX/2005 dated 23-5-2006. The department issued show cause notice on 26-2-2008 proposing disallowance of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Mad.) (e) Krishnav Engineering Ltd. Vs. CESTAT- 2016(331)ELT391(All.) (f) STI Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman-2014(302) ELT 433 (Tri.- Ahmd.) (g) Nocil Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Belapur- 2015 (329) ELT 912 (Tri.- Ahmd.) (h) JBF Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Vapi-2014 (34) STR 345 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (i) Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore-III-2005 (191) ELT 1099 (Tri.- Bang.) (j) Commissioner of C. Ex. Bangalore Vs. Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. -2007 (21S) ELT 177 (Kar.) (k) Cornmr. of C. Ex., Chennai-IV Vs. Kyungshin Industrial Mothersor Ltd.- 2016 (332) ELT 69 (Mad.) 3. He further submits that demand is clearly time bar as fact of the taking suo moto recredit w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tor is that the appellant have clearly disclosed the fact of their suo moto credit before the adjudicating authority before whom claim of interest of such Cenvat credit of capital goods was made and the Ld. Adjudicating authority while rejecting the claim of interest recorded the findings as under: Further it is found that the assessee realized that, they have reversed the Cenvat credit wrongly and availed the credit of its own without any authority and filed the refund of interest amount i.e. Rs. 1,12,747/- based on the CESTAT West zonal bench Mumbai judgment in Godrej Soaps Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai that they were not to pay the interest amount, under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The issue involved in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X