TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act ibid. 2.1 The facts of the case are that the appellant, engaged in manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under CETH 87089900 had, during the period 2009-2012 inadvertently availed cenvat credit of Rs.93,703/- pertaining to certain damaged goods on which insurance claim was made and received by the Appellant. Further, the Appellant was found to have availed excess credits of Rs.94,128/-, Rs.2,49,893/- & Rs.1,38,355/- on receipt of stock transferred goods at its three depots situated at Bhiwandi, Rewari and Irungattukottai. On being pointed out, the Appellant reversed the wrongly availed Cenvat credit on damaged goods and also reversed the excess credit availed on 28.02.2013. However, the department was of the view that interest was to be paid on Cenvat credit wrongly availed. Hence three show cause Notices all dated 30.06.2014 were issued to the Appellant seeking to recover the Cenvat Credits of Rs.94,128/-, Rs.2,49,893/- & Rs.2,32,058/- respectively, wrongly availed along with interest under Rule 14 of CCR read with Section 11A(4)/11AA of the Act ibid. Further it was proposed to impose penalty equal to the Cenvat credit wrongly availed in terms of Rule 15(2) of CCR read ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e intention to evade payment of duty as Cenvat credit allegedly taken was reversed on being pointed out and as such imposition of penalty would not sustain. 4. The Ld. Counsel Shri Senguttuvan, appearing for the Appellant submitted that there was no pecuniary loss in view of huge Cenvat balance and hence interest would not arise. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd.- [2011 (4) TMI 209 (Kar.)] and decision in Final Order No. 41026/2023 dated 09.11.2023 reported in [2023(11) TMI 467] in their own case and also ratio of the decisions in the case of :- i. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore [2010 (8) TMI 403-CESTAT] ii. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Strategic Engineering Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 89-Madras High Court] 5. The Ld. Authorised Representative Shri M. Selvakumar representing the Department reiterated the findings of the lower Appellate Authority. 6. Heard both sides and have considered the submissions and evidences on record. 7. The issues that arise for decision in this appeal are:- (i) Whether interest is leviable on irregul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut to any loss at all. When once the wrong entry was pointed out, being convinced, the assessee has promptly reversed the entry. In other words, he did not take the advantage of wrong entry. He did not take the Cenvat credit or utilized the Cenvat Credit. It is in those circumstances the Tribunal was justified in holding that when the assessee has not taken the benefit of the Cenvat credit, there is no liability to pay interest. Before it can be taken, it had been reversed. In other words, once the entry was reversed, it is as if that the Cenvat credit was not available. Therefore, the said judgment of the Apex Court(Union of India v. M/s. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd) has no application to the facts of this case. It is only when the assessee had taken the credit, in other words by taking such credit, if he had not paid the duty which is legally due to the Government, the Government would have sustained loss to that extent. Then the liability to pay interest from the date the amount became due arises under Section 11AB, in order to compensate the Government which was deprived of the duty on the date it became due. Without the liability to pay duty, the liability to pay interest would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that mere taken of CENVAT credit facilities is not at all sufficient for claiming of interest as well as penalty. 11. It is an admitted fact that Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules as been subsequently amended, wherein it has been clearly stated as "taken and utilised". Therefore, it is quite clear that mere taking itself would not compel the assessee to pay interest as well as penalty. Further, as pointed out earlier, the subsequent amendment has given befitting answer to all doubts existed earlier. Since, the subsequent amendment has cleared all doubts existed earlier in respect of Rule 14 of the said Rules, it is needless to say that the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Department is erroneous, whereas the argument advanced on the side of the respondent is really having merit and the substantial questions of law settled in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are not having substance and altogether the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed." 11. We find that the invocation of extended period on irregularly availed Cenvat Credit and excess credit is settled in view of this Tribunal's decision in the Appellants own c....