9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culations and all benefits which the appellant was entitled to have been given by the Joint Commissioner while re-determining the duty. It is also not in dispute that the excess duty deposited in the first round of litigation has been refunded to the appellant along with the interest applicable on such amount. Interest - HELD THAT:- Interest under section 11AA of the Central Excise Act is to be calculated on the amount of duty not paid or short paid. If the duty gets reduced, so should the interest. The Department cannot retain any excess amount paid as interest over and above what is due. The Joint Commissioner has wrongly rejected the refund of the interest. Penalty - HELD THAT:- Mandatory penalty under section 11AC @ 25% has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t credit on the inputs and input services which were used in the manufacture of the final product. Noting that this aspect was not examined by the lower authorities, the tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for the limited purpose of verifying whether the duty was paid on the inputs and holding that if so, the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit. It was further directed that the issue may be decided after examining the necessary documents, and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant as per law. Fresh evidence, if need be, was also allowed to be admitted as per law. 3. Thereafter, the Joint Commissioner passed order dated 06.12.2019 allowing the Cenvat credit after verification. The Joint Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 00063 dated 31.08.2016 out of total refund claim for Rs. 23,30,275/- dated 18.12.2019 filed by the assessee. 40. I do not agree with the contention of the assessee that they are entitled for refund of aforesaid amounts. The assessee has accepted the duty liability before the Hon ble CESTAT and has not raised the question of interest and penalty. The Hon ble CESTAT has remanded the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority for limited purpose to verify if duty was paid o0n the raw material (input), if so then the assessee is entitled for Cenvat credit. The Adjudicating Authority, accordingly, has adjudicated the case allowing CENVAT credit. Therefore, I find that in view of Hon ble CESTAT Final Order No. A/57939/2017-EX/DB dated 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order and asserts that it calls for no interference. 6. We have considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records. 7. The undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant was liable to pay excise duty and had not done so and during the first round of litigation, the appellant had paid Rs. 11,42,678/- as duty along with interest of Rs. 12,49,677/- and a penalty of Rs. 2,85,670/-. This tribunal had allowed the benefit of Cenvat credit in the first round of litigation and remanded the matter to the original authority for calculation. There is no dispute regarding the calculations and all benefits which the appellant was entitled to have been given by the Joint Commissioner while re-determining the duty. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
