9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in KIRLOSKAR TOYOTA TEXTILE MACHINERY PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU SOUTH GST COMMISSIONERATE [ 2021 (8) TMI 818 - CESTAT BANGALORE ], considered refund of unutilized credit of EC. SHEC on 30/06/2017, it was held that such refund be granted to the assessee as it neither lapses, nor the same was time barred. Revenue Neutrality - HELD THAT:- The appellant not utilized the Cenvat credit of EC SHEC for payment of output tax/duty in December 2016, the same would have become refundable as on 30/06/2017. If the appellant is required to deposit the said amount of Rs. 3,27,325/- in cash, it will become entitled to refund of the duty earlier paid by utilization of credit of EC SHEC, thus the situation is wholly r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Cess paid on inputs or capital goods received in the factory of manufacture of final product on or after the 1st day of March, 2015, can be utilized for payment of the duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act; Provided also that the credit of balance fifty per cent Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess paid on capital goods received in the factory of manufacture of final product in the financial year 2014-2015 can be utilized for payment of the duty of excise specified in the First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act; Provided also that the credit of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess paid on input services received by the manufacturer of final product on or afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest and equal amount of penalty under Section 11 AC read with Rule 15 of CCR, 2004. Penalty was also imposed of Rs.5,000/- under Rule 15 A of CCR. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant had preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who has been pleased to reject the appeal by the impugned order. 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant have filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the appellant urges that there is no malafide on the part of the appellant and further, urges that the show cause notice is bad for invocation of extended period of limitation. 10. Ld. Authorised Representative for the Department relies on the impugned order and states that admittedly, the appellant have taken wrong advantage(s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
