TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Head Office located at Kolkata. The Head Office of the appellant is registered as an Input Service Distributor (ISD) for distributing the credit of service tax paid on reverse charge basis as also the service received from various service providers. During the month of July, 2007 & September, 2007, the appellant's Head Office issued the ISD invoices, on which the appellant took the credit and disclosed it in their monthly RG-23 Register for the respective months. Such credit remained in the books of the Plant all along. Subsequently, the appellant reversed the credit on 09.07.2008 and 26.07.2008 and deposited the amount of Education Cess and Higher Education Cess through PLA on 05.08.2008. Subsequently, a show-cause notice dated 30.07.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., had not utilized the input tax credit of Rs. 1,58,00,485/- for the purpose of payment of Excise duty of its finished goods any time during 2007 to 30th June, 2008. Accordingly, he submitted that no interest is payable when such un-utilized credit is reversed suo motu much before issuance of show-cause notice. 4. The ld.D.R. for the Revenue justified the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find from the adjudication order that the appellant had taken credit and without utilizing such credit, reversed the same prior to issue of show-cause notice. The Adjudicating Authority held that interest at the appropriate rate from the date of taking of the cenvat credit till the date of reversal and deposit of the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal). The learned Authorised Representative strongly argued that if the audit had not pointed out the wrong availment of cenvat credit, it would have resulted in short levy and by simple filing returns by itself will not rescue the appellants from the mischief of suppression. 5. We find that the appellants had taken Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices raised in the name of their Head Office. The said Cenvat Credit has been taken by one of their manufacturing unit. There is no allegation of double availment of the said Cenvat Credit by any other unit. It is also observed that the appellants had reversed the Cenvat Credit on being pointed out by the audit. The appellants have not seriously contested the necessity or correctness of re....