TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1939
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case are that the Appellant had inadvertently taken 100% credit of excise duty and education cess on capital goods received during the period July 2005 to March 2006, aggregating Rs. 5,31,51,459/- as against 50% permitted in the year of receipt in terms of Rule 4(5) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The inadvertent excess credit of Rs. 2,65,75,730/- was suo motu detected and reversed by the Appellant even prior to utilization in April 2006 under an intimation to the Jurisdictional Excise Office. Thereafter, the Appellant was served with the Show Cause Notice dated 12 May 2009 proposing recovery of interest amounting to Rs. 10,17,752/- which stood confirmed by the Learned Commissioner vide the impugned order-in-Original dated 07 October 2009. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore [2016 (340) E.L.T. 393 (Tri.-LB)] held that on account of wrong availment of cenvat credit, interest is not payable, if reversed before utilization. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excsie, Customs & Service Tax, Surat [2016 (332) E.L.T. 820 (Tri.-Ahmd).]. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- "4. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue strongly refutes the arguments of the learned Counsel and submits that the appellants had reversed the Credit only after the audit pointed out the same and after persuasion by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue of levy of interest, there are conflicting decisions by various Hon'ble High Courts and different Benches of the Hon'ble Tribunal. It is seen that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has observed in Para 7 in the case of Dynaflex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), as under : "7. In this regard it may be germane to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-I v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., 2007 (215) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), wherein it has held been that when an entry has been reversed before utilization the same amounts to not taking credit. Rule 14 of the Rules makes provision for recovery of interest where the CENVAT credit has been taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded. Thus, both, in cas....