TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 808
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (for short the Tribunal) by raising the following questions of law for adjudication. i) Whether Cenvat Credit on inputs used in manufacture of exempted goods, which is specifically not allowed by the statutory provision vide Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, can be held as not wrongly taken, going by extraneous facts and circumstances, as done by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the instant case? ii) Whether, when it is an admitted and undisputed fact of the case that the Credit taken by the respondents was not eligible to be taken in view of Rule 6(1), the interest liability thereon could be waived by the Hon'ble Tribunal by holding that the Credit was not wrongly taken and disreg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edit Rules, 2004 (for short the Rules). Demand of interest on that amount was also confirmed in terms of Rule 14 of the Rules read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity the Act), however no penalty was imposed by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the assessee filed an appeal, and the Tribunal, by its Final Order dated 22-10-2013, allowed the appeal. Challenging the order of the appellate authority, the Department has preferred the present appeal. Ms. P. Sarada, learned senior Standing Counsel for Customs and Central Excise, has strenuously contended that the only dispute before the Tribunal was with regard to the demand of interest on the irregularly taken Cenvat credit and the respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of over-riding a statutory provision barring the taking of credit on inputs used in exempted goods. We have heard the learned senior Standing Counsel for Customs and Excise appearing for the appellant and perused the material placed on record. The Tribunal, in its order dated 22.10.2013, has recorded the following findings: In our opinion, the appellant has definitely a case for seeking clarification from the department. In March, 2010, the appellant sought clarification from the department to know whether the clearance of goods to M/s.B.E.L. are exempted from payment of excise duty in terms of notification. In the absence of clarification from the department, they took CENVAT credit during the intervening period i.e. from Sept....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14 of C.C.R. 2004. In these circumstances, we do not find that the appellant is liable to pay interest since credit taken by them is not wrong in the first place. In the result, appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. From the findings arrived at by the Tribunal as reproduced above, it is obvious that in March, 2010, the appellant in accordance with the relevant provision of law, did seek clarification from the department to know whether the goods on clearance to the respondent-assessee are exempted from payment of excise duty in terms of the Notification and only in the absence of such clarification from the department, they took CENVAT credit during the intervening period i.e. from September, 2010 to Marc....