2011 (8) TMI 530

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... without payment of duty and had availed credit of entire amount of basic customs duty in respect of one invoice dated 27.10.2008, issued by 100% EOU. As soon as the officers informed the appellants that the credit availed by them was wrong, one the same day i.e. on 10.01.2009, the date of visit of officers, the appellants paid the total amount of cenvat credit taken by them with interest. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated proposing to appropriate the amount already paid towards wrongly availed credit with interest and proposing to impose penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.   2. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in respect of credit taken on MS Channels, Beams, Angles etc., am....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he supplies made by M/s. Reliance Industries Limited, 100% EOU, during the period from 30.12.2008 to 03.01.2009, credit was taken on 04.01.2009 in respect of five invoices issued by Reliance Industries. It was the submission of learned Counsel that mistake has occurred because the invoice shows the different types of duties and in the end, there was a line total duty foregone , and under this head, all the amounts payable as duty was totalled and indicated as duty foregone. There is no doubt the persons handling the subject matter should ensure that wrong credit is not availed. Normally the break up of duty paid is indicated when duty is paid but not when duty is not paid. Under these circumstances, the claim that it was a mistake and not a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....interest even though the same had not been utilised. During the relevant time, there were decisions taking a view that interest is not payable if the credit has not been utilised. All these facts and circumstances would show that the claim of the appellant that there was no intention on their part to suppress the facts and avail the credit wrongly, is acceptable. Therefore, taking note of the fact that appellant had paid duty and interest as soon as the same was pointed out and before issue of show cause notice, this was a fit case for not issue of show cause notice under the provisions of Section 11A (2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Since I find that there was no suppression of facts, this part of impugned order cannot sustain and the iss....