2018 (2) TMI 1244

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Audit Team on 2.9.2011, the appellant reversed the Cenvat credit. Later on, a show cause notice dated 26.2.2013 was issued to the appellant for demand of interest for the intervening period by invoking the extended period of limitation. The demand of interest was confirmed by the authorities below. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the show cause notice is barred by limitation. Therefore, the demand of interest cannot be confirmed in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Neel Metal Products Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2014 (306) ELT 367 (P&H). 4. On the other hand, the ld. AR oppose the contention of the ld. Counsel and submits that the i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed by CESTAT has been reversed by the Delhi High Court, by relying upon judgments in Kwality Ice Cream Company and Another v. Union of India and others [(2012) 281 E.L.T. 507] and Commissioner v. TVS Whirlpool Limited [2000 (119) E.L.T. A177 (SC)] and holding that as the period of limitation that applies to recovery of the principal amount shall also apply to the claim for interest thereon, the demand is time barred. The opinion recorded by the Delhi High Court in Kwality Ice Cream Company and Another v. Union of India and others (supra) was followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate v. VKN Industries Private Limited (CEA No. 67/2011 (O&M), decided on 17-4-2012), by holding as follows :- ....