TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1985. During the course of audit of the records of the appellant, it was noticed that the appellant have availed credit of entire of amount cenvat duty paid in on inputs by the 100% EOU supplier, in violation of Rule-3(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR 2004 for short). On calculation, it was ascertained that the appellant had availed excess cenvat credit amounting to Rs.1,96,329/- (including Ed. Cess & H. Ed. Cess). On being pointed out, the appellant have reversed an amount of Rs.1,90,581/- vide RG 23 A Pt.II E. No.132 dtd. 04/09/2009. 3. A show cause Notice dated 12/01/2010, was issued to the appellant seeking to recover wrongly availed credit on inputs supplied by 100% EOU, amounting to Rs.1,96,329/- along with interest. The notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in September, 2009. It is his submission that the judgment of the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of MTR Foods Limited [2012 (282) ELT 196 (Kar.)] would apply for the proposition that when demand of duty itself is hit by limitation and they are seeking relief from interest as well as penalty. It is also his submission that the Tribunal in an identical issue in the case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corp. [2011 (23) STR 385 (Tri.-Del.)] has held that there is no intention to evade duty, hence no penalty or interest is leviable. 6. The ld. Departmental representative (AR) on the other hand reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 7. I have considered the submissions made at length by both the sides. The issue involved ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the returns it is clearly mentioned that they availed credit under the aforesaid rules. The audit party accepted the same. It is only in the second audit that they noticed the mistake and initiated proceedings. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid facts none of the other conditions prescribed in the Proviso exists in this case to extend the period of limitation of 5 years. It is in this background the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority and in restoring the order passed by the original authority. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 8. I also find that the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corp. (supra) had in a....