2018 (1) TMI 1013

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....09 on imported capital goods. Consequently, they have reversed the credit in February 2009, but availed to discharge interest for wrong availment of the said credit. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to them on 31.08.2009 proposing recovery of interest of Rs. 17,80,894/- under the provisions of Section 11AB readwith Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed, however, no penalty imposed. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate Shri S. R. Dixit for the appellant submits that due to inadvertent errors they had availed Cenvat credit on the duty forgone on capital goods imported under EPCG Scheme during the period September 2008 to January 2009 and such credit was voluntarily reversed by them befo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....us Cenvat credit of capital goods imported during the period September 2008 to January 2009 hence, along with reversal of erroneous credit, the appellant ought to have paid the interest. It is his contention that there is no issue of determination of duty as was in the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd s case, but an erroneous credit availed which the appellant are not eligible and accordingly reversed on realization of the said mistake. Therefore, the principle laid down in the said case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Similarly, the present demand was issued for the normal period of limitation, therefore, the principle laid down in GNFC s case also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. He has further su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tended period of limitation, the principle laid down in this regard including the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. vs. C.C.E., LTU 2013 (297) ELT 332 (Del.) will be applicable. After analyzing relevant provisions, it has been observed by their Lordships at Para 14 of the said Judgment as follows: 14. A reading of the aforesaid paragraph would show that in the said case notice of payment for interest was issued after four years and it was held that it was beyond a reasonable period and the department could recover the amount from the Assessing Officer, who had not taken steps for four years and not from the respondent-assessee therein. The finding of the Supreme Court on interpreting the applicable ....