M/S. Simbhaoili Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
- CitationExcise Appeal No. 1240 of 2006
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that where Cenvat credit wrongly taken has been reversed while still lying unutilized in the Cenvat credit account, no interest is payable on that wrongly taken credit for the intervening period, following the view that unutilized credit reversed before utilization does not attract interest liability. The Tribunal further holds that whether the credit was in fact lying unutilized in the Cenvat credit account throughout the intervening period is a question of fact, to be verified by the adjudicating authority from the records, and the matter is disposed of on that basis.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 301/CE/MRT-II/2005 dated 16.12.2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut II]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran , Member (Technical)
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. Simbhaoili Sugar Mills Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
Meerut II
Appearance:
Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri Pramod Kumar, Jt.CDR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing /decision: 20.7.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. A/52327 /2015-EX(DB)
Per Ashok Jindal :
The short issue involved in the matter is whether the appellant is required to pay interest for the intervening period where they have reversed the cenvat credit taken wrongly by them.
2. Heard the parties.
3. Learned AR relied on Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. [2011 (265) ELT 3(SC)] and Suzuki Motorcycle (I) Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (311) ELT 677 (Tri-Delhi)].
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (279) ELT 209 (Kar)] and Gurmehar Construction vs. CCE, Raipur [2014 (36) STR 545 (Tri-Del)].
5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
6. In the case of Bill Forge, the Honble Karnataka High Court has taken note of the decision of Honble Apex Court in Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. (supra) and thereafter arrived at the decision that if the cenvat credit lying in the cenvat credit account which has been taken wrongly but reversed before utilization, in that situation, interest is not payable, the said view of the Honble High Court of Karnataka was followed by this Tribunal in Gurmehar Construction vs. CCE, Raipur (supra). In this case also, it is the contention of the learned Counsel that cenvat credit wrongly taken was lying in the Cenvat credit account unutilized. If the said contention is correct, then the appellant is not required to pay interest on wrongly taken reversed cenvat credit following the decision of Gurmehar Construction vs. CCE, Raipur (supra). The adjudicating authority if desires, may call for the records to verify the fact that during the intervening period, sufficient amount way lying in the cenvat credit account.
7. With these terms, the appeal is disposed of.
( Dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
( B Ravichandran )
Member(Technical)
ss
2
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