9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, BANGALORE VERSUS M/S BILL FORGE PVT LTD, BANGALORE [ 2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] , they are not liable to pay the interest. For the purpose of verification of the excess credit reversed by the appellant, the original authority is directed to verify from the records regarding the allegation of the appellant regarding the excess reversal of CENVAT credit - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/20530/2019-SM - Final Order No. 20633/2019 - Dated:- 14-8-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Ravi Kapoor, CA For the Appellant Shri Rama Holla, Superi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the period March 2013 to September 2013 and ₹ 4,68,629/- for the period October 2013 to February 2014 that has been wrongly availed by the company should not be recovered in terms of Section 14 of the CCR; b. The demanded amount should be appropriated against the reversals already made by the company for the periods mentioned above; c. Applicable interest should not be demanded and recovered as per Rule 14 of the CCR; and d. Penalty of 50 percent of the above duty should not be imposed under Section 15(2) of the CCR read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2.2. The appellant filed reply to the show-cause notice and submitted that (i) the CENVAT credit to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present appeal has been filed only to challenge the wrong conclusion of the Commissioner(Appeals) holding that the appellants have already reversed the interest before issuance of the show-cause notice and also not considering the excess reversal made by the appellant due to inadvertent error to the tune of ₹ 30,86,821/-. He further submitted that firstly the entire demand is time barred because extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present case because there is no suppression of material facts on the part of the appellant with intent to evade duty. He further submitted that part of the amount was even reversed before the audit party raised objection and subsequently when the audit party raised the objection, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from the very beginning the appellant has raised the issue of reversal of excess credit to the tune of ₹ 13,44,925/- for the period April 2012 to March 2013 and ₹ 17,41,896/- for the period April 2013 to February 2014 and has also submitted the revised computation. But both the authorities have not given any findings on the same. He further submitted that this amount of excess reversal made inadvertently is required to be refunded to the appellant as the same has been paid by mistake of fact and the same cannot be held to be duty or tax under Central Excise Act. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
