9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Following the Supreme Court judgment in the case of UOI AND ORS. VERSUS IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD. [ 2011 (2) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] , the interest is chargeable. Hence, the demand of interest is upheld. Extended period of limitation - Penalty under section 11 AC which is equal to the amount of cenvat credit availed - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice has invoked the extended period, the ingredients for invoking extended period for demand as well as for imposition of penalty under section 11 AC are same. The demand being under extended period the penalty is inevitable, once demand is sustainable for extended period, the penalty under section 11 AC is imposed as mandatory - There is no dispute that the appellant have availed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- already reversed and proposing to charge interest of Rs. 6,78,439/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and proposing to impose penalty on the appellant under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Additional Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot vide Order in-Original dated 12.08.2011 held that the Appellant are liable to pay interest of Rs 6,78,439/- and the amount of penalty of Rs 33,94,662/-. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original dated 12.08.2011, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has upheld Order-in-Original dated 12.08.2011 and rejected the appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rayan Polyplast 2005 (179) ELT 20 (SC) Punjab Tractors vs. CCE - 2005 (181) ELT 380 ( SC) CCE vs. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals :td 2005 (179) ELT 276 (SC) Commissioner vs. Shive Steel Re-rolling Mills 2016 (337) ELT A094 (Bom.) Union of India vs. Indian Ispat Works Pvt Ltd. 2015 (322) ELT 647 (Chatt. HC) Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd vs. CCE, Vishakhapatnam 2003 (161) ELT 285 (Tri. Bang.) affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in its order re[ported at 2004 (163) ELT A53 (SC) 2.2 He further submits that as regard the heavy reliance made by the Revenue on the Hon ble Supreme court judgment in case of Ind-Swift Laboratories 2011 (265) ELT 3 (SC), the said judgment was distinguished by the Hon ble Karnataka High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the above rule it is clear that the interest is chargeable in event of either wrongly availed credit or wrongly utilized. Therefore, even though the credit was not utilized but since the credit was wrongly availed the interest is unavoidably chargeable. This issue has been settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ind-Swift Laboratories (Supra). The appellant have made a submission that the Apex Court judgment of Ind-Swift Laboratories has been distinguished by the Hon ble High Court in the case of CCE vs. Bill Forge Pvt Ltd. (Supra). I am of the view that when that judgment of the Supreme court is delivered even though the same was distinguished by the High Court but on this Tribunal the Supreme Court Judgment shall be binding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
