9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit, which was lying unutilized and which has been ordered to be reversed'. Thus, no question of law much-less any substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal as the issue is squarely covered in favour of respondent assessee in case of Gupta Steel. Appeal dismissed. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA Appearance: For the Appellant(s) No. 1 : Mr Nikunt K Raval (5558) For the Opponent(s) No. 1 : Rule Served ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hirak Shah for learned advocate Mr. Nikunt K. Raval for the appellant. 2. By this appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 arising out of order dated 06.04.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat charging of interest on the amount of credit lying unutilised is not sustainable. 6. This Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Gupta Steel while dealing with a similar question has held as under: 2. Three show-cause notices under Rule 57AH (now Rule 12 of Cenvet Rules) read with Section 11A and Section 38-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were issued to the respondent-assessee for having wrongly taken credit of additional custom duty paid on bunker, foodstuff etc. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand raised in the show cause notices vide order in Original No. BVR/46- 48/2003, dated March 31, 2003. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to pay interest on the Amount of credit, which was lying unutilized and which has been ordered to be reversed. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any infirmity in the order referred to above. Under the circumstances, the substantial question of law, as suggested by the appellant, does not arise for consideration of this Court. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. 7. In view of above, we are of the opinion that no question of law much-less any substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal as the issue is squarely covered in favour of respondent assessee by order passed in Tax Appeal No. 1145 of 2005 in case of Gupta Steel (supra). 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
