TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1491
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gular Cenvat credit availed and reversed by the appellant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s.Anmol Stainless Private Limited, is engaged in the business of manufacture of cold rolling of thick stainless sheets, slitting in small sizes, making stainless pipes etc. classifiable under Chapter No.73049000 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. Based on an E.A. 2000 audit of the excise and service tax records of the Appellant for the period 2012-13, it was issued with a Show cause notice dated 03/08/2017 alleging irregular availment of Cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 10,41,110/- along with interest and penalty and appropriating certain amount already paid by the Appellant before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by reducing the opening balance of Cenvat credit and not by showing the same as reversal of Cenvat credit. Further, as regards interest on the total amount of Rs. 9,51,500/- as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), he stated that when demand to the extent of Rs. 4,11,713/- has only been confirmed than the question of interest on amount of Rs. 9,51,500/- is not tenable at all. Further, he stated that the Appellant has already paid an interest of Rs. 41,452. As regards interest, he further stated that the Appellant has not paid interest on an amount of Rs. 2,27,983/- on account of irregular availment of Cenvat credit in certain input services during October 12 to March 13 which was reversed by the Appellant in May 2014 and Irregular avail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and also produced a Chartered Accountant certificate for the same. Based on the applicable provisions under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, as was in force during the period from April 2012 to March 2013, I hold that the Appellant is not required to pay any interest. Also, the concept as to "when can it be said that credit has been taken", has been lucidly explained by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE vs. Bill Forge Pvt Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 204 (Kar) as below: "..20. From the aforesaid discussion what emerges is that the credit of excise duty in the register maintained for the said purpose is only a book entry. It might be utilised later for payment of excise duty on the excisable product. It is entitled to us....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty is liable to pay interest. Section do not stipulate interest is payable from the date of book entry, showing entitlement of Cenvat credit. Interest cannot be claimed from the date of wrong availment of CENVAT credit and that the interest would be payable from the date CENVAT credit is taken or utilized wrongly." 10. The above decision in Bill Forge (Supra) has been further followed by the Karnataka High Court in the following cases: • CCE, Bangalore vs. Pearl Insulation Ltd. 2012 (281) ELT 192 (Kar) • CCE, Bangalore vs. Gokaldas Images (P) Ltd. 2012 (28) STR 214 (Kar) 11. Relying on the above decisions, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CCE vs. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd 2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad) has obse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to how the interest will be required to be paid when in absence of availment of Modvat credit infact, the assessee was not liable to pay any duty. The Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the assessee did not avail of the Modvat credit in fact and had only made an entry. 5. In view of this factual position, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises." 13. The above decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in Commissioner v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2007 (214) E.L.T. A50 (S.C.). 14. Further, in CCE, Ghaziabad vs. Ashoka Metal Decor (P) Ltd.[2011 (21) S.T.R. 469 (All.)] the Hon'ble High Court held that when the wrong credit is not uti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III has been rejected by the Apex Court on 14-5-2007 [2007 (214) E.L.T. A50 (S.C.)]. The decisions cited by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel are distinguishable and do not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. M/s. SKF India Ltd. (supra) it has been held that on revision of prices retrospectively invoices were issued and differential duty was paid. It has also been held by the Apex Court that payment of differential duty clearly falls under Section 11A(2B) of the Act and hence interest is chargeable under Section 11AB of the Act. Similar view has been taken in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. International Auto Limited (s....