2019 (4) TMI 1598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peals) on Revenue's Appeal has enhanced the penalty from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 15(1) of the CCR, 2004. Since the issues in both the cases are interconnected therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking engaged in rendering of telecommunication service and are availing the CENVAT credit of duty paid on various inputs and capital goods and also Service Tax paid on various input services. During the period from October 2005 to September 2006, the appellant procured various capital goods and availed CENVAT credit of duty paid on the said capital goods. The allegation against the appellant is that they have av....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the impugned order demanding interest under Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004 is based on the Apex Court decision in the case of M/s. Ind swift Laboratories Ltd. reported in 2011-TIOL-21-SC-CX. He further submitted that the said decision of the Apex Court is not applicable in the facts and the circumstances of the case and has been distinguished by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012 (279) ELT 209 (Kar.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court after considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ind Swift Laboratories (supra) has h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....On the other hand, Learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant is liable to pay interest as he has wrongly availed the credit. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Sri Kumaran Alloys (P) Ltd., 2019 (365) ELT 305 (Mad.). * Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur v. Vandana Vidyut Ltd., 2016 (331) ELt 231 (Chhattisgarh). * Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II v. Atul Ltd., 2017 (358) ELT 825 (Tri. Ahmd.). 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case....