Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
H N V Castings Pvt. Ltd vs Cce & St, Jaipur-I on 10 October, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT II
Excise Appeal No.E/147/2011-EX [SM]
[Arising out of Order-in- Order in Appeal No.459 (DKV)CE/JPR-I/2016 dated 12/13.10.2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur-I]
H N V Castings Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE & ST, Jaipur-I Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri. Man Mohan Mahipal, CA Present for the Respondent: Shri. Dharam Singh, D.R. Coram: HONBLE MR. ASHOK K. ARYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 10.10.2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 54527/2016 PER: ASHOK K. ARYA
The appellant, namely H N V Castings Pvt. Ltd. are in appeal against the Order in Appeal No.459 (DKV)CE/JPR-I/2016 dated 12/13.10.2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur-I where-under Order-in-Original dated 18.02.2009 has been sustained, thus, the demand of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.22,78,815/- alongwith interest and imposition of equivalent penalty has been confirmed.
2. The ld. Counsel Mr. Man Mohan Mahipal, CA appearing for the appellant inter-alia pleads that they have already reversed the cenvat credit; they are the new unit, as soon as they came to know that cenvat credit is not admissible to them, they reversed it and they have not utilized the same; therefore, in view of Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of CCE & ST, LTU, Bangalore vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (279) E.L.T. 209 (Kar.) no liability of interest is due against them.
3. The ld. Advocate says penalty is also not imposable in view of Tribunals decision in the case of Commissioner Central Excise Allahabad vs. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. reported in 2014 (300) E.LO.T. 449 (Tri.-Del.) and Prism Cement, Unit- II vs. CCE & ST, Bhopal.
4. Ld. A.R. Shri Daram Singh on behalf of Revenue inter alia pleads that the appellant wrongly took cenvat credit; therefore, interest and penalty is liable to be paid by them.
5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission of both the sides and the case laws cited.
6. I notice that when the facts of wrong availment of cenvat credit came to the notice of the appellant, who is a new assessee, they reversed the same immediately i.e. as soon as they came to know of the said fact. Therefore, following the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd (supra) and CESTAT decision in the case of Gurmehar Construction vs. CCE, Raipur reported in 2014 (36) S.T.R. 545 (Tri.-Del.) and CESTAT decision in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. and Prism Cement, Unit-II (supra), I am of the considered view that no interest is chargeable and no penalty is imposable in this case.
7. Based on above discussion the appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if any.
[Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court] (ASHOK K. ARYA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Anita ??
??
??
??
0 3