2018 (4) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... railway coaches to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (DMRC). Such supplies to DMRC, during the relevant period was claimed to be exempted from payment of duty under Sr No 90 of Notification No 6/2006-CE dt 1.3.2006 and also under Sr No 91 of the said Notification as the supplies were made against International Competitive Bidding (ICB). The appellants had paid Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism for respective of services received by the appellant and availed cenvat credit on the same since used in or in relation to the manufacture of the said goods. Consequent to the investigation initiated by the Dept., it was informed to the appellant that credit of Service Tax paid on various input services were not admissible under Rule 6 of CCR....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., accordingly, they reversed the credit amount voluntarily under the provisions of Sec. 11A(2B) of CCE, 1994. As they had not paid the interest amount, consequently, show cause notice was issued to them for recovery of interest amount. He has submitted that Sec 11A (2B) of CEA 1944 is a special provisions which was inserted in the Central Excise Act to reduce litigation. The said provision is very clear which lays down that if a person makes payment of duty on his own or subsequent to the calculation of duty liability by the Central Excise Officer, before issuance of the notice and inform the same to the Dept., no show cause notice would be issued to him. However, the Central Excise Officer could verify the payments and issue show cause not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the said judgment the Hon'ble High Court has proceeded on the sole basis of the fact that there was admittedly no suppression of fact and the duty which was paid voluntarily, in fact not payable. However, in the present case the investigation by the Preventive Wing resulted in the issuance of a show cause notice issued for the period November 2008 to September 2010 invoking extended period and the payment was made by the appellant but not disputed by them. Therefore, this vital differences of facts are apparent, hence, the judgments in the aforesaid cases is not applicable. As far the plea of the appellant that interest is not payable on the credit availed since the same has not been utilised does not hold good for the period being cover....