TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y did not agree to pay interest as informed vide their letter dated 15.03.2011. Therefore a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for proposing demand of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 2,31,46,878/- under the provisions of Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, interest under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 was proposed to be recovered from the appellant, penalty under Rule 15(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was also proposed to be imposed on the appellant for wrong availment of CENVAT credit. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand which was proposed in the show-cause notice and the same was appropriated against the suo-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ST-3 return no amount stand due for recovery. He further submits that Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 invoked by the Adjudicating Authority requires that the demand can be issued for the credit which is wrongly taken. This can be a triggering point for show-cause notice under Section 73. But show-cause notice should be issued for short levy or non-payment, which is not the case here. Therefore no show-cause notice was to be issued and question of interest and penalty does not arise. He submits that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. - 2012 (25) STR 184 (S.C.) shall not apply in the facts of the present case inasmuch as in that case, the company had availed as well as utilised the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lizers Co. Ltd. - 2012 (285) ELT 336 (Guj.) (xii) Ceat Ltd. - 2012 (275) ELT 433 (Tri.-Mumbai) (xiii) Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd. - 2009 (240) ELT 328 (P&H) (xiv) Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Excise, Delhi - 2005 (189) ELT 257 (SC) 3. On the other hand Shri Rishi Goyal, learned Additional Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He further submits that the appellant have wrongly availed the CENVAT credit, therefore even though the same was suo-moto reversed the provisions of Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules is applicable therefore the demand of interest cannot be avoided. He submits that the issue has been settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andard Greases - 2017 (350) ELT 123 (Tri.-Mumbai) 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that though the appellant had availed the credit during the period 2004-08 but on advise by Statutory Auditor they reversed the same suo-moto in 2008, and declared the said reversal in their ST-3 return, therefore in our view in this fact no show-cause notice should have been issued under Section 73(1) for demand of CENVAT credit which was admittedly paid by the appellant. As regard the demand of interest, we find that since the extended period was not available for the revenue for the reason that there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant as per their conduct discussed above, the extended period ....