2021 (8) TMI 170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the manufacture of excisable goods classifiable under Chapter 84 & 87 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing the facility of cenvat credit as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. During the course of audit of the records of the appellant by the Internal Audit Party, it was noticed that the goods they had sent for job work from their factory during the months of May 2007 and June 2007 were not received back into the factory for further manufacture, within the stipulated period of 180 days and they failed to reverse the cenvat credit of Rs. 38,87,316/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Sixteen only) involved on such inputs. On this being pointed out by the Audit, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e further submitted that the appellant is not liable to pay interest in cases where the cenvat credit wrongly availed is reversed prior to its utilization. This stand of the appellant has been confirmed by the subsequent amendment to Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 01/04/2012. She further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., LTU, Bangalore V. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012 (279) E.L.T. 209 (Kar.) She also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Madurai V. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. reported in 2014 (310) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....SC) wherein the Apex Court has held that when demand is based on audit objections, suppression cannot be alleged. She also submitted that malafide intention cannot be alleged against the appellant who is a Public Sector Undertaking. For this, she relied upon the following decisions: • M/s. BEML Ltd. V. CCE, Bangalore-I vide Final Order No. 21400/2017 dated 01.08.2017 • Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. V. CCE - 2013 (291) E.L.T. 449 (Tri.-Ahm.) • UP State Sugar & Cane Development Corporation Ltd. V. CCE - 2009 (242) E.L.T. 260 (Tri.-Del.) 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and on perusal of the mat....