9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15, Annexure A-3, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. E/2181/2008-EX (DB), claiming following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the extended period, under the facts and circumstances of the case, is not invokable? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty is not to be imposed and interest cannot be charged under the provisions of the Central Excise Law?" 2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. M/s Grasim Industries Limited Bhiwani known as M/s Grasim Bhiwani Textile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat credit of Rs. 64,60,537/- of service tax paid on input service which was used in the manufacture of exempted goods in contravention of the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Rules and the same was recoverable under Rule 14 of the Rules read with Section 11A of the Act. Accordingly, the respondent was issued a show cause notice dated 24.1.2008 as to why the inadmissible credit of Cenvat should not be disallowed and recovered which was paid under protest alongwith interest as applicable and why a penalty for contravention of the provisions of the rules, should not be imposed under the rules. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Rohtak vide order dated 15.7.2008, Annexure A.2, confirmed the demand of Rs. 64,60,537/- under Rule 14 of the Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isation and therefore such reversal would amount to not taking credit. Therefore, the demand of interest was unsustainable. After considering the relevant case law on the point, the Tribunal held the demand of interest as unsustainable. With regard to the imposition of penalty, it was recorded by the Tribunal that on 4.7.2006, the respondent had written letter explaining the manner of availing the credit of inputs, capital goods and input service. When the department called the respondent to furnish the details regarding availment of credit, it had furnished the same. 5. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana Vs. Jagatjit Industries Limited, 2011 (22) S.T.R. 518 (P&H), this court held that where the Cenvat Credit wrongly availed was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants the same on 09.08.2007. The show cause notice is dated 24.01.2008 for which in our view is within the period of limitation. We do not find any ground necessary for invoking the extended period of limitation. Be that as it may, the contention of the appellant that there was no suppression of facts or willful mis-statement is not without force. On 04.07.2006, the appellants have written letter explaining the manner of availing the credit of inputs, capital goods and input service. Further, when the department called for to furnish the details regarding availment of credit, the appellants had furnished the same. On such score, we hold that the respondents have miserably failed to establish suppression or mis-statement with inten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
