TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1081
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... services and have availed 100% of CENVAT credit, of Rs. 35,85,71,911, on duty paid on various capital goods, during the period April 2007 to January 2008 CENVAT in the first year itself instead of 50%. The said CENVAT credit was reversed by the Appellant on 15.02.2008. A Show Cause Notice was issued seeking confirmation of Cenvat reversed; payment of interest of Rs. 2,37,64,632 and penalty. The SCN was confirmed. The appeal is challenging demand of interest and imposition of penalty. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Learned Commissioner has not provided any reasoning whatsoever for confirming the demand; ha not discussed various submissions made by them and the cases law cited. The order was based solely relied o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen it is due and payable. The levy of interest is geared to actual amount of tax withheld and the extent of the delay in paying the tax on the due date. Essentially, it is compensatory and different from penalty --- which is penal in character. 2.2. Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 during the period in question reads as below. RULE 14. Recovery of CENVAT credit wrongly taken or erroneously refunded. --- Where the CENVAT credit has been taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded, the same along with interest shall be recovered from the manufacturer or the provider of the output service and the provisions of sections 11A and 11AB of the Excise Act or sections 73 and 75 of the Finance Act, shall apply mutatis f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. Vs CC, Cochin (2001 (133), E.L.T. 175 (Tri. - Bang.)). Considering the intention of the legislature in an identical issue, in a recent judgment, Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE, Madurai V/s. M/s. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd as reported in 2014-TIOL-466-HC-MAD-CX has held that mere taking of credit itself would not compel the assessee to pay interest as well as penalty. Hon'ble High Courts observations at Para 11 are as follows. "It is an admitted fact the Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules has been subsequently amended, wherein it has been clearly stated as "taken and utilized". Therefore it is quite clear the mere taking itself would not compel the assessee to pay interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (41) S.T.R. 307 (Tri - Del) (vi). Addis Marketing (2017 (50) S.T.R. 56 (Tri) - Mumbai)2.7. (vii). Royal Travels (2011 (21) S.T.R. 31 (Tri-Ahmd) (viii). Agarwal Trading Co. (2016 (44) S.T.R. 479 (Tri. Del). 2.6. Further, the Counsel submitted that limitation also applies to Interest in view of the following. (i). Sutham Nylocots (2014 (309) E.L.T. 255 (Mad - HC) (ii). Neer Metal Products Ltd. (2014 (306) E.L.T. 367 (P & H - HC). (iii). Hindustan Insecticides Ltd (2013 (297) E.L.T. 332 (Del - HC) (iv). Kwality Ice Cream Company 2012 (27) S.T.R. 8 (Del) (v). T.V.S. Whirlpool Ltd. (1996 (86) E.L.T. 144 (Tribunal) (vi). T.V.S. Whirlpool Ltd. (2000 (119) E.L.T. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i). CCE Pune - I Vs GL & V India Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (321) ELT 611 (Bom) (viii). CCE & Cus Raipur Vs Vandana Vidyut Ltd 2016(331) ELT 231 (Chhattisgarh) (ix). J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd. VS AC of C.EX Mysore 2016 (340) ELT 193 (Tri-LB) (x). Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd. Vs CCE, Raigad 2015-TIOL-2510- CESTAT-Mum) (xi). F.L. Smidth Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Trichy 2014-TIOL-1439- CESTAT-MAD (xii). F.L. Smidth Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Trichy 2014-TIOL-2186-HCMad- XC (xiii). Gunnebo India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai - VII 2018-TIOL-3785-CESTATAT-MUM. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The brief issue that needs to be decided in this case is whether the appellants are l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the fact that the reversal was made by the appellants on 15-2- 2008, as soon as the error was pointed out. The Show Cause Notice doesn't not bring out any allegation, of specific omission or commission on the part of the appellants, so as to establish intent to evade payment of duty. The Show Cause Notice merely states that the facts were brought to the Notice of department only during the course of Audit. It is not denied that the appellants were regularly filing the ST-3 returns. The Show Cause Notice doesn't specify when audit has taken place. It only states reversal was on 15- 2-2008. Show Cause Notice was issued 08/10/2012. Therefore, we find that the department has not made any case for invoking extended period of time. We find that t....