2012 (12) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Sisupal, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Heard both sides in respect of both these appeals. A. No. E/129/2007 2. The Ld. Advocate Shri M. Karthikeyan, appearing for the appellants states that in this case the appellants took 100% credit in respect of capital goods in the first year, whereas under the Rules they were eligible to take only 50% of the credit. On this being ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - 2011 (265) E.L.T. 3 (S.C) = 2012 (25) S.T.R. 184 (S.C.). 4. I have considered the detailed submissions from both sides. In the case of C.C.E., Mumbai v. Bombay Dyeing & MFG. Co. Ltd. - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that reversal of credit before utilization was as good as not taking the credit in the context of applying the exemption under Notification No. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a similar case where the credit was wrongly taken and as recorded in para 4, the entire amount was also paid back. Hence, I find no difference in the fact, situation between the present case and the case of Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. in so far as the wrong availment of credit and subsequent reversal/pay back in the context of the issue of charging of interes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s not a case of fraud, misstatement etc. Hence, I determine a penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Rule 13(1) instead of Rs. 10,000/- adjudged as penalty by the original authority. A. No. E/130/2007 6. The ld. Advocate states that the issue involved in this appeal is chargeability of interest in respect of differential amount paid for inputs removed as such. This case is covered by Rule 3(4) of ....