9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany providing banking and financial services and during the period between October 2005 to March 2008, appellant had availed cenvat credit against services received towards repair and maintenance of vehicles, LIC premium paid against gratuity of employees, purchase of diesel generator as capital goods and service tax paid towards its installation charges totally amounting to Rs. 5,17,907/- but during the course of audit of appellant's records, audit officers pointed out those credits were inadmissible and consequently appellant reversed the entire amount on 30.09.2008. Subsequently it was put to show-cause notice dated 08.07.2010 and proceedings were initiated against him that resulted in ultimate finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and placed his reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement pronounced in respect of UOI vs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. 2011 (265) ELT 3 (SC) to justify the imposition of interest component by the Commissioner (Appeals), since to him entry in the cenvat credit register tantamounts to taking of credit. 5. Heard from both sides at length and perused the case records. Admittedly appellant is a banking and financial company governed by the Board of Directors and it has not contested the legality concerning admissibility or inadmissibility of the credit originally intended to be availed by it. The appellant has only challenged the imposition of interest under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 75 of the Finance A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only when someone has the said thing in its possession. Occasionally, those words are used as synonyms of each other and therefore used interchangeably. A careful scrutiny of the heading of Rule 14 vis-a-vis its content would clearly indicate that both taking and utilisation are put in the body of the Rule to carry the same meaning since in the body of Rule 14 "taken" is not prefixed with the word "wrongly" which is embedded in the heading part and "utilisation" in the body of the Rule is sufficed with the word "wrongly" and the same word "utilisation" is conspicuous by its absence in its head note. Therefore it cannot be said that cenvat credit has been taken as found in the body of Rule 14 is the credit rightfully taken and utilised wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14(1)(i) made it clear that in such a case the credit shall be recovered and in case of wrong utilisation, in view of Rule 14(1)(ii) such recovery shall be made with interest from the manufacturer or provider of service. 8. I have carefully gone through the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex court in UOI vs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. case referred above and also the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay reported in 2015 (321) ELT 611 on which heavy reliance has been placed by the ld. AR for the respondent department. In both the decisions, the aspect of interpretation of statute has been discussed and it has been held that the word "or" cannot be substituted with the word "and" appearing in Rule 14 but the factual context of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
