2016 (11) TMI 54

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g February, 2009 to June, 2009 on certain imported goods listed in Table-A of the show cause notice. They had also availed cenvat credit on structural items listed in table B of the show cause notice. Based on intelligence, Central excise officers visited their factory and on scrutiny of the documents, it was revealed that cenvat credit on these items was not admissible to them. Statement of General Manager (Tech.) of the appellant was recorded and the appellants during the course of investigation, realized their mistake and reversed the inadmissible cenvat credit availed on the basic customs duty and cess and also reversed the credit availed on the structural items. The dispute is whether interest is liable on the cenvat credit which was r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....L-466-HC-MAD-CX. He further submits that since there is no loss to the Revenue and as per the case laws relied by him, interest and penalty be set aside. 4. The Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the onus and responsibility to take admissible credit was on the party as per Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Relying heavily on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indo-Swift Laboratories as reported in 2011 (2) TMI 6- SC, he argued that the law does not make distinction on the cause of taking credit and the crux of the case had not been mitigated. He also submits that under rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit rules, intent to evade is not necessary. Hence the contravention is established an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hich has been reversed before utilization by the appellant in light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Bill Forge P. Ltd. (supra) which has been followed by coordinate bench in CCE, Raipur Vs. M/s. Sharda Energy and Minerals Ltd. -2013 (291) E.L.T. 404 (Tri.  Delhi) and in Commissioner of C. Ex. Allahabad V Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd.  2014 (300) E.L.T. 449 (Tri.  Delhi)." In view of this, the demand of interest in this case is not proper and justified. 7. As for penalty under Section 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of CCE Madurai Vs. M/s Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. (supra) has held as below: "8. The entire argument put forth on the side of....