9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with reference to the credit which are put to use to discharge duty on final products. There is no justification to demand and recover again the erroneous credit which is already reversed by the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.1774 of 2008 - A/53400/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 22-5-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Sh. Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant Sh. M.R. Sharma, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 21.05.2008 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of graphite electrodes falling under heading 8545 liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 11AC of the Act read with Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that due to an accounting error in the account programme, the appellants have inadvertently taken credit twice during the impugned period. They themselves detected the error and immediately reversed the excess credits alongwith applicable interest, attributable to utilised credit, and incorporated the details in ER-1 return for the month of March, 2007. The interest applicable on the utilised portion of credit was later paid and intimated to the Department. He submitted that there is no ground at all to proceed against the appellant as the error of excess credit has been suo motu rectified and also wherever utilisation has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. There is no legal basis to impose penalty of equivalent amount invoking provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. We find no justifiable reason for such action. 5. Regarding the interest liability, the appellant strongly pleaded that they have utilised only ₹ 51,56,721/- out of the excess erroneous credit taken and lying in the books of account, during the month of August, 2006. Other than this amount, the credit taken was lying in the books of the account and never put to use by the appellant. They have categorically mentioned the said facts with supporting chart and intimated the department. The liability of the appellant for interest has to be decided based on utilisation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
