9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmal period of one ear. It is also apparent from record that the appellant deposited the said wrongly availed credit only after the Department brought it to the appellant’s notice. However, the simultaneous fact is that the time of filing the ST-3 return for the period of October, 2008 to July, 2012 qua the said utilisation had not yet expired. The said ST return was filed on 24.04.2013 since the credit availed was being returned on 16.04.2013, i.e. prior filing of return, it is clear that the stage of suppressing the fact as alleged by the Department has not yet come - the deposit by way of reversal cannot be held to be a delayed deposit. Thus, question of any interest and penalty thereof does not at all arise. The Order under challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02.2018 has upheld the Order of original Adjudicating Authority. However, confining the said demand to ₹ 76,711/- instead of initial demand of ₹ 1,58,826/-. Similarly, amount of interest and penalty has also been reduced to ₹ 76,711/- each. Being aggrieved of the said Order, present Appeal has been filed. 2. I have heard Mr. Mudit Jain, CA for the appellant and Mr. P. Juneja, Ld. DR for the Department. 3. It is submitted on behalf of appellant that the appellant had not utilised the cenvat credit as is alleged. The deposit was made by the appellant even prior the time of filing of the respective ST-3 return, hence, there was no need of the Show Cause Notice. Demand though has been reduced to an extent but the same ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ltantly, confining demand to the normal period of one year and as such reducing it to ₹ 76,711/-. In the given circumstances, the only point of consideration left is as to whether the demand for even one year is sustainable and the equal amount of interest and penalty i.e. ₹ 76,711/- each has rightly been demanded vide the Order under challenge. 7. Perusal of record shows that it is appellant s own admission that he wrongly availed the credit. Thus, the demand confirmed for one year by the Order under challenge has no infirmity nor while limiting the same to normal period of one ear. It is also apparent from record that the appellant deposited the said wrongly availed credit only after the Department brought it to the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
