9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rge India Pvt Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] where it has been held that if the credit has been taken wrongly and the same has been reversed, then the assessee is not liable to pay interest and penalty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20328/2017-SM - 22666/2017 - Dated:- 25-10-2017 - Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member Ms. Sandhya, Advocate Lakshmi Kumaran Sridharan - For the Appellant Smt. Kavitha Podwal, Superintendent(AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S. GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 28/11/2016 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) wherein the Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the order passed by the Jt. Commissioner except to the ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit so availed. The adjudicating authority also demanded interest under rule 14 and imposed equivalent penalty under Rule 15(3) CCR. Aggrieved by the Order-in-original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) on the ground that they had only reflected 100% credit in their records but had utilised only 50% and further the intention of the legislature was to restrict the utilisation and not availment and further the appellants have furnished a chart to show that they had not utilised the credit taken and further the appellant has declared the details of availment in their ST3 returns and no suppression can be alleged. After considering the submissions, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to pay interest as the appellants have merely taken the credit without utilisation and the Department also does not dispute the eligibility of the credit taken. For this purpose, the appellant relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE, Bangalore Vs. Bill Forge India Pvt. Ltd. [2012(26) STR 204 (Kar.)] ii. CCE, Madurai Vs. Strategic Engineering [2014(310) ELT 509 (Mad.)] iii. CCEx Cus, Vadodara Vs. Dynaflex Pvt. Ltd. [2012(25) STR 277 (Guj.)] iv. J.K. Tyres Vs. Asst. Commr. of C.Ex, Mysore [2016(340) ELT 193 (Tri. LB)] 4. On the other hand, learned AR for the Revenue submitted that the appellants have wrongly availed credit to the extent of 50% of the Central Excise duty in contravention to Rule 4(2) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
