Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Isolloyd Engineering Technologies Ltd vs Shimla on 12 September, 2018
1
Appeal No. E/61231/2018
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
SCO 147-148, SECTOR-17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
~~~~~
Appeal No. E/61231/2018
(Arising out of OIA-CHD-EXCUS-001-APP-824-17-18 dated 03.04.2018 passed
by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise and Service Tax-Shimla)
M/s Isolloyd Engineering Technologies Limited : Appellant (s)
Vs
CCE & ST- Shimla : Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri Ajay Jain, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri Tarun Kumar, AR CORAM :
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/Decision: 12.09.2018 ORDER No.A/62973 / 2018 Per : Mr. Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order and contesting the demand of interest.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of job work activities to various clients. Revenue is of the view that the activity undertaken by the job work amounts to manufacture, therefore, the investigation was conducted and during the investigation when it was pointed out, the appellant immediately paid the duty. Later on, the show cause notice was issued by invoking the extended period of limitation to demand of interest and to impose penalty of the appellant. Both the authorities below, the appropriated amount of duty paid by the 2 Appeal No. E/61231/2018 appellant but confirmed the demand of interest against the appellant. Against the order of demand of interest, the appellant is before me.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as the demand of interest has been raised by invoking the extended period of limitation , the same is not sustainable in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. VAE VKN Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (322) ELT 269 (P&h)]. He also submits that during the intervening period, the appellant was maintaining sufficient balance in their Cenvat credit account, therefore, also in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Bangalore vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (279) ELT 209 (Kar.)], the appellant is not liable to pay interest.
3. On the other hand, the Ld. AR for the Revenue supported the impugned order and relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Parle Product Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2017 (358) ELT 798 (Tri.-Mumbai)].
4. Heard the parties.
5. Considered the fact that in this case, the demand of interest has been raised by invoking the extended period of limitation. It is a fact on record that during the course of investigation when it was pointed out that the appellant paid duty. Therefore, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of VAE VKN Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the show cause notice issued to demand of interest from 3 Appeal No. E/61231/2018 the appellant is barred by limitation, therefore, I set-aside the demand of interest confirmed against the appellant.
6. In these terms, the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) G.Y.