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

.... issued to the respondent on 27.12.2007 proposing 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, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Central Excise, Chennai-II-vs-ICMC Corporation Ltd., reported 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 ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce Act, 2010, we do not find anything survives further for this Court to consider the merits 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 Commiss....