Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Uniglobal Papers Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Cgst & Central Excise, ... on 29 January, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No.E/77077/2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.02/HAL/CE/2017-18 dated 30.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata-II)
Uniglobal Papers Pvt. Ltd.
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata-II
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri N.K.Choudhary, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Sri K.Choudhary, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
Honble Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/Decision:- 29.01.2018 ORDER NO.FO/75209/2018 Per Shri P.K.Choudhary
1. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
2. The appellant filed this appeal against the demand of interest of Rs. 30,083.00 for the period March,2011 to March, 2012. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Craft Paper and Duplex paper classifiable under Chapter 48 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It has been alleged that the appellant took irregular Cenvat Credit from Capital goods in so far as they have taken excess credit of 50% in the First Financial Year instead of Second Financial Year. The appellant contended that they have availed the excess credit but they have not utilized it. Both the authorities below confirmed the demand of interest following the Case Laws mentioned therein.
3. I find that there is no dispute that the appellant is entitled to avail the excess 50% credit on Capital Goods in the subsequent Financial Year. There is a categorical averment that the appellant had not utilized the excess 50% credit in the same Financial Year which is not disputed by the Revenue. In such a situation, the demand of interest cannot be sustained. The Tribunal in the case of Shiv Om Paper Mills Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak 2016 (342) ELT 430 (Tr-Del) in the identical situation held that taking credit would not attract levy of interest when such credit were not utilized in payment of duty on final products.
4. In view of the above decision, the demand of Interest cannot be sustained. Accordingly the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
(Operative Portion of the Order already Pronounced in the Open Court) S/d.
(P.K.Choudhary) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SS 2 Appeal No.E/77077/2017