2019 (2) TMI 751

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of Rs. 70,25,601/- on certain capital goods. These goods were consigned to M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd (M/s ALL) but were received by assessee for undertaking job work. It appeared that assessee has wrongly taken credit of such capital goods. On being pointed out, they reversed the entire amount in two instalments. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee demanding the aforesaid irregular credit of CENVAT credit on capital goods already taken which was subsequently reversed along with interest. It was also proposed to impose penalty on them under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. After following due process, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand as already reversed by the appellant under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aim for interest thereon. We find no merit in the appeals and they are dismissed with costs." 4. She further, submits that relying on the above judgment this bench in the case of Hindupur Bio-Energy Pvt Ltd [Appeal No. ST/30605/2018] vide Final Order No.A/31293/2018 dated 09.10.2018 set aside the demand of interest on the ground that it was made after the time limit. She also relies on the following case laws: a. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd vs. CCE, LTU [2013 (297) ELT 332 (Del)] b. CCE vs. Emco Ltd [2015 (325) ELT A104 (Bom.)] c. V Mathalagan vs. CCE, Puducherry [2018-TIOL-1509-CESTAT-Mad.] d. Pahwa Chemicals Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, Delhi-IV [2014 (311) ELT 205 (Tri- Del)] e. Ucal Systems Ltd vs. CCE, Chennai [2010 (261) ELT 375 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Whirlpool Ltd (supra) that the demand of interest has to be made within the normal period of limitation or 5 years as the case may be, as is applicable to the demand of duty itself. In this case, there is no allegation or evidence that there was any fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of interest on the CENVAT credit. Therefore, the demand of interest should have been made within one year and this has not been done within this time limit. In view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TVS Whirlpool Ltd (supra), we find that no demand can be made for the interest being time barred. 8. In so far as the imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of CENVA....