TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 712
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Shri Narayana Swamy Naidu submitted that after the issue of show cause notice, and consequent to Sections 69 and 73 of the Finance Act, 2010, Trade Notice No.25/2010 dt. 16-09-2010 conveyed the procedure to resolve the disputes with the department with regard to payment of 8% / 10% of price of exempted goods where common inputs were used for both dutiable and exempted final products during the period 01-09-1996 to 31-03-2008. Accordingly, they had calculated their tax liability only for the period 16-05-2005 to 30-11-2007 since for the period prior to and after that, they had maintained separate accounts. The tax liability so worked out came to Rs. 23,06,207/- which was paid by them on 02-11-2010 and paid interest liability of Rs. 18,69,311/- later, on 23-12-2010. Subsequently, they had filed the application to the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-II on 23-12-2010 in terms of the Trade Notice No 25/10 inter alia conveying the details of payments made towards their tax liability and interest liability. They did not receive any further communication with respect to the aforesaid appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to 'NIL' rate of duty, where the period of pending dispute is between 01-09-1996 and 31-03-2008. As per the Trade Notice, person intending to resolve their disputes in this manner was required to pay the amount, distributing the Central Excise credit attributable to the inputs/input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods, along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of duty date till the date of payment and make an application to the Commissioner of Central Excise with documentary evidence along with Certificate from a Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant, certifying the amount of input credit attributable on or before 7.9.2010. On receipt of such application, Commissioner of Central Excise was required to verify the correctness of the amount paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of application and, in case, the amount so paid is found to be less than the amount, he shall call upon the applicant to pay the differential amount which shall be paid within a period of 10 days from the date of communication from the Commissioner in this regard. Relevant portion of Trade Notice No.25/2010 (C. EX) dt. 16.9.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts on record, however, no action seems to have been taken by the Commissioner of Central Excise on receipt of aforesaid application from appellant as required to be done in terms of para-3 of the Trade Notice No.25/2010 dt. 16.09.2010 referred to supra. (f) Instead, the pending proceedings initiated vide aforesaid show cause notice dt. 08-05-2010 was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad-II vide his OIO dt. 26-04-2011, which is the impugned order in appeal. 6. From a study of the impugned order, it is seen that the adjudicating authority, in para-13 of his order, has taken note of the application filed by the appellant on 23-12-2010 along with the Cost Accountant's certificate, of reversal of amount of Rs. 23,06,207/- on 02-11-2010 and payment of interest of Rs. 18,69,311/- vide challan dt. 23-12-2010. In para-15 of the impugned order, the adjudicating authority concedes the correctness of the payments made by assessee with regard to reversal of inadmissible credits availed. However, the said authority, only on the grounds that there was delay in filing the application and payment of interest by appellant, has chosen to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stantive benefit of the beneficial provisions of Section 69 and 73 of the Finance Act,2010 cannot be denied to the appellant only on the grounds that there was delay in filing the application and also that interest payable on the amounts reversed was paid only on 23-2-2010. In the event, that portion of the impugned order confirming the demand of Rs. 72,23,44,335/- is set aside and the demand is restricted to as verified and found correct by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, and which amount has already been paid by the appellant. 8. Interest on the said amount of will definitely also be payable under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Amount of paid by appellant towards such interest liability has also been appropriated in para-16 (b) of the impugned order. It is seen that this interest payment, while relating to the period when inadmissible credits had been availed by appellant namely April 2005 to November 2007, though paid only on 23-12-2010 has been calculated only till November 2010 as seen in te declaration filed by appellant [para-27 or the appeal papers]. 9. Coming to the penalty aspect, the dispute ....