2017 (7) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.4.2012 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 35 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....provisions of Rule 3 of CCR, 2004 and had availed irregular CENVAT credit by suppressing the facts from the department, a show-cause notice dated 24.10.2011 was issued demanding the recovery of interest of Rs. 80,206/- in terms of provision to Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 apart from proposing equal penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 15. After f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it and interest is not permissible in law. He relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of J.K. Tyre and Industries Ltd. Vs. ACCE reported in 2016 (340) ELT 193. He further submitted that the notice for demand of interest and also imposition of mandatory penalty is barred by limitation as there is no allegation of suppression and the reversal of credit with interest have been made o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion is not sustainable, the extended period of limitation is not invokable and that there would have been absence of necessary ingredient of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for imposition of penalty. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the extended period has been rightly invoked as the factum of irregular availment....