M/S. Jct Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Ludhiana
- CitationAppeal No. E/56727/2013-EX(SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a manufacturer has sufficient balance in its Cenvat Credit account during the intervening period between the availing of credit and its reversal, no interest is payable on the delayed reversal of that credit, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong to deny the appellant relief by reliance on the decision in Ind-Swift Laboratories without considering the decision applying it to identical facts.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 310/CE/Appl/LDH/2012 dated 18.12.2012 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh].
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. JCT Ltd. .Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T. Ludhiana .Respondent
Appearance:
None present for the Appellant
Shri D. Singh, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing: 15.05.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 51636/2015-EX(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal:
The short issue involved in the matter is that whether the appellant is required to pay interest for the intervening period for short reversal of the amount at the time of the clearance of the goods or not.
2. Perused the order and heard the Ld. AR.
3. On perusal of the impugned order I find that the Ld. Commissioner (A) has relied only on the decision in the case of UOI Vs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd.-2011 (265) ELT 3 (SC) and held that decision in the case of CCE. Bangalore Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd.-2012 (26) STR 204 (Kar) shall not come to the rescue of the appellant. In this case the claim of the appellant is that they are not required to pay interest for delayed reversal of the Cenvat Credit as they were having sufficient balance in their Cenvat Credit account during the intervening period. Therefore, interest is not payable. The decision of the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. is having identical facts and in that case after considering the decision in the case of Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. the Honble Apex Court came to the conclusion that if there is sufficient balance in the Cenvat Credit account during the intervening period in that case interest is not payable. Admittedly in this case there was sufficient balance during the intervening period. Therefore, I hold that appellant is not required to pay interest for delayed reversal of Cenvat Credit.
4. In these terms, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)
(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
2
E/56727/2013-EX(SM)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free