TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 38
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der was passed by this Bench vide Final Order No. A/30584/2018, dated 22.05.2018 during which proceedings also it was found that none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, the matter was decided ex-parte remanding it to the first appellate authority for denovo adjudication after following principles of natural justice. In pursuance of this order, the impugned order has been passed. There is no specific para of prayer in the present appeal except for para 3 of the grounds of appeal which reads as follows: "Hence, considering the above, the impugned Order in Appeal is a case of Self contradiction. On this ground alone, the Order-in-Appeal is liable to be set aside." 3. In the appeal in Form ST-5 at Sl.No. 24, the prayer was th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey were not put to notice under Rule 6(3A) and therefore they may be given an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly the matter was remanded to the original authority who, by the impugned order, passed the order after following principles of natural justice, confirming the demand as well as interest liability. 5. At this stage, the only point in dispute is confirmation of interest. The denial of CENVAT Credit under Rule 6 has not been contested by the appellant. The penalty imposed by the lower authority has already been set aside by the first appellate authority and it has not been challenged by the Revenue. The only contentious issue left is the demand of interest. It is the contention of the appellant that the demand of interest has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he explanation-III under that very rule, upto 28.02.2011, which was omitted by Clause 5(v) of Notification No. 3/2011-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2011. However, with effect from 01.04.2011, in terms of Explanation-III under Rule 6(3D) [inserted by clause 5(vii) of the same notification], the recovery of the "amount payable" under Rule 6(3A) is governed by Rule 14 which automatically includes both the primary amount under Rule 6(3A)(c) and interest, a liability accompanying such primary demand, as provided for in Rule 6(3A)(e). Hence the interest prescribed under Rule 6(3A)(e) merits recovery along with the primary amount reversible under Rule 6(3A))(c), by invoking Rule 14, which has factually been proposed at Para 7(iii) of the SCN. Therefore, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to the instant case. 8) The plea for considering the grounds taken before the jurisdictional bench of Hon. Tribunal is otiose since the same has already been considered in the remand order passed by the Hon. Tribunal. However, I observe that at Para 7 of the grounds of appeal before the Hon. Tribunal, the appellant pleaded that this forum exhibited self contradiction in respect of interest component, in the OIA dated 31.07.2017. On careful consideration, I find that in the OIA dated 31.07.2017, I have concluded at Para 12 that an interest liability under Rule 14 can be abated only in respect of irregular availment or utilization (primarily) in contravention of Rules 3 or 4 of the CCR 2004, when the closing balances in each month exceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds distinguished both on facts and law. 9) In summary therefore the demand for recovery of amount quantified under Rule 6(3A)(c)(iii) and confirmed at para 29(i) of the impugned order; along with the appropriation of this amount at Para 29(ii) of the impugned order stand upheld. Interest liability arises on this amount under Rule 14 of the CCR 2004, read with Rule 6(3A)(e) and Explanation-III to Rule 6(3D) ibidem, computed to the extent of Rs. 5,41,574/- as tabulated hereunder; and Para 29(iii) of the impugned order stands modified accordingly. Para 29(iv) and 29 (v) of the impugned order stand set aside as held in the OIA dated 31.07.2017, left untouched by the Tribunal remand. TABLE showing computation of interest on amount paid un....