2023 (4) TMI 663

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re also availing Cenvat Credit on input services and Capital Goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Appellant had received different capital goods on which duty of excise was paid amounting to Rs. 46,94,384/-. As per the Rule 4(2)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 they are eligible for credit of 50% during the year 2009-10. However, appellant had taken 100% credit on capital goods in the year 2009-10 itself. As per department since appellant have erroneously taken 50% cenvat credit of Rs. 23,47,192/- in the year 2009-10 instead of taking in the year, 2010-11, the appellant was liable for payment of interest on such cenvat credit wrongly taken. Therefore a Show Cause Notice dtd. 21.12.2010 was issued for recovery of interest amounting to Rs. 84 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th sides and perused the records. The limited question needs to be answered in this matter is whether interest on the amount of Cenvat credit availed but not utilized is recoverable or otherwise. The recovery of interest on the inadmissible Cenvat credit has been directed under Rule14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which at the relevant time reads as under : "Rule 14. Recovery of Cenvat credit wrongly taken or erroneously refunded. - Where the Cenvat credit has been taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded, the same along with interest shall be recovered from the manufacturer or the provider of the output service and the provisions of Sections 11A and 11AB of the Excise Act or Sections 73 and 75 of the Finance Act, sha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Another issue raised by the Appellant is that subsequent amendment brought to Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the expression "taken or utilized wrongly" has been substituted with "taken and utilized wrongly" be read as clarificatory in nature and hence retrospective in application. We find that this issue has also been considered by the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in Balmer Lawrie& Co. Ltd. - 2014 (301) E.L.T. 573 (Tri.-Mum.). After considering in detail, this Tribunal at Para 5.4 observed as follows: 5.4 As regard the argument advanced by the appellant that since the expression "Cenvat credit taken or utilized wrongly" had been substituted effective from 17-3-2012 with the words "Cenvat credit taken and utilized wrongly," the sam .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X