2022 (11) TMI 794

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sing to demand an amount of Rs.1,09,00,260/-(One Crore Nine Lakhs Two Hundred and Sixty only) being the amount equivalent to 10% of the value of the exempted goods under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Through the impugned order dated 26.06.2008, the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 3.The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the scope of Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 2010, came to a conclusion that since the assessee has exercised the option of paying the amount of input credit along with interest and thereby had reversed the credit with interest, even before the show cause was issued, there was no ground to impose the demand against....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in 2015(315)E.L.T. 388(Mad.) and in C.C.E., Chennai-II-vs-Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Limited, reported in 2017(356)E.L.T.184(Mad.). 8.The learned counsel for the respondent by placing reliance upon the above judgments submitted that once the assessee had reversed the credit along with interest even prior to the issuance of show cause notice and this was made even prior to the amendment made to the Finance Act, 2010, there is no scope for applying the interest that is fixed through the amendment and hence, there is no absolutely ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 9.We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10.There is no dispute with regard t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts of the case pleaded by the Revenue." (b)In C.C.E., Chennai-II-vs-Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Limited, reported in 2017(356)E.L.T.184(Mad.), it is held as follows: "12.2 While confirming the order of the CESTAT, Madras, setting aside demand of duty, the Hon'ble Division Bench in CCE, Puducherry's case followed an earlier decision of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. ICMC Corporation Ltd., reported in 2015(315) E.L.T. 388(Mad.), wherein, after considering the above amendments, this Court held that, as per Section 73 subsection( 2) of the Finance Act, 2010, the assessee has to make an application to the Commissioner of Central Excise along with documentary evidence and a certicate from the Chartered Accountant or ....