2017 (2) TMI 298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(AR) For the Respondent ORDER The facts of the case are that appellant had engaged independent manufacturers, referred to as Away Centre Fabrication Vendors (ASF Vendors) to manufacture components and despatch the same directly to the sites of their customers. They also engaged independent inspection agencies to check the quality of the goods manufactured by such ASF vendors.  Such insp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d imposition of penalty.  Ld. Advocate placed reliance on the ratio of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE Madurai Vs Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. - 2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad.) to support her contention that interest liability would not be applicable in their case.  2.1  With regard to penalty, Ld. Advocate submitted that, at the first place, availment of credit was o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to 17.3.2012, wrong taking of credit even though it may not have been utilized, would result in provisions of interest liability under Section 11AB being attracted. For this reason, penalty is also imposable. 4.  Heard both sides.  The issue in question is no longer res integra and has been settled by a number of High Court decisions including that of Billforge Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Rat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is reproduced herein below for ready reference : "10. In fact, this Court has perused the entire decision reported in 2012 (26) S.T.R. 204 (Karnataka) (Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Bangalore v. Bill Forge Private Limited) and ultimately found that mere taken of CENVAT credit facilities is not at all sufficient for claiming of interest as well as penalty. 11. It is an admitted fact....