Limitation finding left unchallenged, so the revenue appeal failed and interest and penalty could not survive.

A revenue appeal failed because the limitation finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not challenged in the grounds of appeal, so that conclusion stood accepted and left no basis to disturb the relief granted. The appellate authority had held that the demand was confined to the normal period under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, that penalty under rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was unwarranted absent suppression of facts, and that interest under rule 14 was not payable where the credit had not been utilized. The Tribunal upheld the order and rejected the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revenue appeal could succeed when the Commissioner (Appeals)' finding that the demand was barred by limitation was not challenged, and whether the consequential demand of interest and penalty could therefore survive.

Analysis: The appellate authority had held that the demand was confined to the normal period under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that, in the absence of suppression of facts, penalty under rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was not warranted. It also held that interest under rule 14 was not payable if the credit had not been utilized. The Tribunal noted that the revenue's grounds did not assail the limitation finding at all. Since the limitation conclusion remained unchallenged, the appellate order on that aspect stood accepted by the revenue, leaving no basis to interfere with the relief granted.

Conclusion: The appeal was rejected and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld.

---