Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

July 2013

2013-TIOL-789-CESTAT-MUM Ane Industries Pvt. Ltd./Shri Gagandeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Whether interest amount would accrue on credit taken but not utilised?
Facts:
The appellant rendered services of mining and availed ineligible CENVAT credit to the extent of Rs. 47,79,078/- but did not utilise the same. Interest and penalties were confirmed. The appellant relied on the case of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 204 (Cal) where it was held that interest liability would not accrue if there was no liability to pay duty.

Held:
The Hon. Tribunal relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. 2011 (265) ELT 3 (SC) held that that there was no difference between the expression “credit taken” and “credit utilised” for the purpose of recovery of wrongly availed credit in terms of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and accordingly ordered deposit of Rs. 15 lakh.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

2013-TIOL-734-CESTAT-MUM M/s. GMMCO Ltd. vs. CCE, Nagpur

2013 (30) STR. 435 (Tri.-Delhi) Bhavik vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur- I