9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rns for the period October 2015 to March 2016. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held that if the credit availed is reversed without utilization then interest and penalty cannot be levied. Interest and penalty not levied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20357/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21184 /2018 - Dated:- 21-8-2018 - Hon'ble Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Harish Bindhu Madhavan, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Matrupsharan, AR For the Respondent ORDER Order Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 invoking extended period provisions. After due process of law, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Yelahanka Central Excise Division, Bangalore IV Commissionerate, Bangalore vide OIO No.25/2017 dated 31.3.2017 issued vide File C. No.IV/09/49/2016/YSTD/Adjn./B-IV confirmed the demand of ₹ 7,95,153/- along with applicable interest and penalty under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the same. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. Learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant has not been utilized as there was sufficient balance of credit available in the CENVAT account and therefore, the question of interest and penalty does not arise. On this submission, the appellant relied on the following decision: CCE vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd.: 2012 (26) STR 204 (Kar.) CCE vs. Ashima Dyecot Ltd.: 2008 (232) ELT 580 (Guj.) as maintained by the Hon ble Supreme Court in 2009 (240) ELT A41 (SC) CCE, Mumbai-I vs. Bombay Dyeing Mfg. Co. Ltd.: 2007 (215) ELT 3 (SC) Ganta Ramanaiah Naidu vs. CCE, Guntur: 2010 (18) STR 10 (Tri.-Bang.) CCE vs. Pearl Insulation Ltd.: 2012 (27) STR 337 (Kar.) Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. CCE: Final Order No.21898/2017 dated 30.8.2017 Simp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka has held that if the credit availed is revered without utilization then interest and penalty cannot be levied. Similarly, in the other decisions which are cited supra, this issue has been settled in favour of the assessee and it has been held that if an assessee reverses the CENVAT credit before utilization and he has sufficient balance in his CENVAT credit account, then interest and penalty is not to be imposed. By following the ratios of the above said decisions, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, I set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any. ( Order was pronounced in O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
