2018 (9) TMI 900 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Demand of Interest – CENVAT credit, availed wrongly, was reversed before utilization – Held that:- The appellant had reversed the credit before utilization – the demand of interest and the findings with regard to penalty cannot sustain – reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Strategic Engineering [2014 (11) TMI 89 – MADRAS HIGH COURT] – Demand of Interest do not sustain – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. E/40356/2018 – Final Order No. 41954/2018 – Dated:- 9-7-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Ms. S. Yogalakshmi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the app
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of the appellant, ld. counsel Ms. S. Yogalakshmi submitted that the appellant had reversed the credit immediately on being pointed out. There was sufficient balance in their CENVAT account and therefore the demand of interest and the finding with regard to penalty cannot sustain. She relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. – 2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad.) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bay Forge Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry vide Final Order No.4 1766/2018 dated 11.6.2018. 3. The ld. AR Shri R. Subramaniam supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. It is brought out from
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =