2016 (4) TMI 768

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant company Shri M. Kannan, Advocate submits that the period involved in this appeal is from 30.04.2009 to 31.08.2010 in respect of service tax and 28.01.2010 to 13.02.2011 in respect of capital goods. He further submits that they are only contesting the interest and penalty and though they have availed the credit but not utilized the same. He further submits that they had inadvertently availed excess capital goods credit to the extent of Rs. 2,98,747/- in as much as they have availed credit for the entire excise duty paid on capital goods instead of availing 50% of the duty paid as per Rule 4 (2)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He submits that credit of Rs. 12,045/- was availed wrongly on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ard has clarified that interest shall be recoverable when credit has been wrongly taken even if it has not been utilized in terms of Rule14 of CCR.2004. 4. Heard both sides in the matter. The only point for contest is the applicability of interest and imposition of penalty. During the course of hearing, the Learned Advocate submitted that they are not contesting the eligibility of credit. 5. Both sides have relied upon various judgments in their favour. The submission of the Learned Counsel that they had only availed the credit but not utilized the same is an assertion without any documentary proof. The judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Strategic Engineering (P) Limited, reported in 2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad) covers the i....