Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cummins India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune ... on 25 January, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI. APPEAL NO. E/750/07-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-appeal No.P.III/BBP/053/07 dated 30.4.2007 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune II) For approval and signature: Shri K.K.Agarwal, Honble 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? ====================================================== Cummins India Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III Respondent Appearance: Shri J.H.Motwani Advocate For Appellant Shri. D.P.Mukhopadhyay SDR For Respondent CORAM: Shri K.K.Agarwal, Honble Member (Technical) : Date of Hearing : 25.1.2008 Date of Decision : 25.1.2008 O R D E R NO. Per : K.K.Agarwal, Member (Technical) :
1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant during the period March, 2005 to December 2005 reversed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.23,17,791/- on account of shortages of inputs noticed by them on physical verification of stock. They were however issued a show cause notice which besides reversing the credit also required them to pay interest till date of reversal of the credit and accordingly interest amounting to Rs.66,496/- was demanded. Show cause notice also sought to impose penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the demand of interest of Rs.66,496/- and also imposed penalty of equivalent amount under Sec.11AC. However, on appeal, the penalty was set aside but the demand for interest was sustained.
2. Ld. advocate for the appellants submits that in this case the shortage was detected by them on their own. Since the number of inputs used by them is huge, they could not satisfactorily explain the shortage and reversed the credit on their own. In such case there was no requirement for demand of interest. They referred to the decision of the Tribunal in their own case in similar circumstances where Tribunal vide its order No.1412/07/C-IV/SMB dated 9.10.2007 and A/782/ C-IV/SMB/07 dated 29.5.07 has set aside the demand of interest and penalty in similar circumstances.
3. Heard both sides. I have considered the submissions. I find that the facts of the present case are similar to the appellants own case vide order cited above, which in turn has followed the decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Limited vs. CCE, Delhi 2004 (65) RLT 813. Following the same I set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and hold that no interest is demandable in such circumstances. Appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced and dictated in court) (K.K.Agarwal) Member (Technical) .ts. / 20075007250108MM