JUDGMENT : (Deepak Roshan J.) : The instant appeal has been preferred by the Revenue being aggrieved by the Final Order No. 75028-75029/2021 dated January 28, 2021 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata (in short, “CESTAT”) in Appeal No. ST/480/2012-DB preferred by the appellant against the Order-in- Original No. 40/S.Tax/Commr/2012 dated July 11, 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshedpur (in short, “the Commissioner"). 2. Brief fact of the case as indicated in the instant appeal is that the Tata Steel Ltd. (In short TSL), who carries on the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel products, has its Steelworks at Jamshedpur in the State of Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as the “Said factory”) and its Registered and Head Office at Mumbai. TSL has the following divisions located in various parts of the country: - (a) Steel (b) CRC West located at Tarapore, Maharashtra (c) Tubes Division at Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (d) Bearings Division at Kharagpur in West Bengal (e) Ferro Alloys & Manganese Division (FAMD) having its Head Office at Kolkata in West Bengal (f) Wire Division at Tarapore, Maharashtra (g) CRM Sisodara in Gujarat (now closed) Each of the aforesaid division of TSL is a profit centre and consists of manufacturing units and/or mines located in different parts of the country. The Steel Division consists of the following units:- (a) Steelworks at Jamshedpur (b) Agrico Unit at Jamshedpur (c) Collieries at Jharia (d) Mines at Noamundi (e) Collierial at West Bokaro. Each manufacturing unit of the various Divisions, though separately registered in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with provisions of Notification No. 35/2001-CE(NT) dated June 26, 2001, do not have separate legal entity of their own. They are a part of TSL, who is also the manufacturer for the purposes of, inter alia, Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. 3. TSL entered into a BEBP with its holding company, Tata Sons Limited. As per the said agreement, Tata Sons Limited renders service to TSL in the nature of ‘intellectual property services’, taxable under Section 65(105)(zzr) of the Finance Act, 1994 as was in force during the relevant period. In consideration of the said service, TSL paid yearly subscription to TATA Sons Limited which, as per the agreement, was based on certain percentage of annual turnover of TSL. In consideration of the said service, TSL paid yearly subscription to TATA Sons Limited which, as per the agreement, was based on certain percentage of annual turnover of TSL. The said agreement was entered into between TSL and Tata Sons Limited and not between the individual divisions of TSL and Tata Sons Limited. In fact, in the said agreement there is no mention of any individual division nor is there any mention therein of payment of subscription by the constituent division of divisions of TSL to Tata Sons Limited, in spite of the fact that benefit of the service rendered by Tata Sons Limited was/is enjoyed by all the divisions of TSL, since they are part of the same company, which is the recipient of such services. The entire subscription payable under the contract for, inter alia, the said period was paid by TSL’s Mumbai Head Office and Jamshepur Steelworks respectively. None of the divisions made any proportionate contribution towards subscription for the subject services rendered by Tata Sons Limited to the said service provider. No part of the cost of such subscription paid to Tata Sons Limited was borne/accounted for by any of the said divisions proportionate or otherwise. As against the payment of subscription by TSL, Tata Sons Limited issued invoices to TSL’s Mumbai Head Office under Rule 4A(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”) charging, inter alia, service tax on the subscription amount under the said agreement. The Head Office of TSL in Mumbai being registered as an “Input Service Distributor” (“ISD”, in short) took credit of the said service tax amount paid by it and distributed the entire credit to TSL’s Jamshedpur Steelworks through ISD invoices issued under Rule 4A(2) of the said Rules. The Jamshedpur Steelworks, a part of the Steel Division of TSL, utilized the said credit of service tax towards discharging its excise duty liability on dutiable final products manufactured and cleared from the said Steelworks. 4. For the intellectual property service rendered by Tata Sons Limited during a particular year the invoice was issued by Tata Sons Limited during the immediate succeeding year of the financial year in which the service was rendered. Such invoice issued by Tata Sons Limited contained details of the amount of subscription, the period for which the subscription was charged, service tax, etc., paid and all other relevant details. Such invoice issued by Tata Sons Limited contained details of the amount of subscription, the period for which the subscription was charged, service tax, etc., paid and all other relevant details. During the said period, on the basis of ISD invoices issued by Mumbai Head Office of TSL distributing the service tax paid on intellectual property service rendered by Tata Sons Limited, TSL availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 25,18,82,031/-. On audit of the Books of accounts and records of TSL carried out by the jurisdictional Central Excise & Service Tax authorities during the period September, 2010 to October, 2010 it was alleged that TSL had incorrectly availed CENVAT credit of the subject service tax involved on the basis of ISD invoices, inasmuch as, the Mumbai Head Office should have distributed the credit proportionately to all the divisions of TSL and not to the Jamshedpur Steelworks only. TSL replied to the said objection pointing out the incorrectness of the said allegation. However, during such exercise TSL noticed that it had inadvertently availed credit of service tax amount of Rs.83,86,816/- which was attributable to West Bokaro and Jamadoba Collieries which were engaged in manufacturing exempted goods during the relevant period. Hence, in view of Rule 7(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, TSL reversed the proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to these mines, of a total of Rs.83,86,816/ - (including education cess and secondary & higher education cess), along with appropriate interest payable thereon, vide service tax RG 23 Part II, Serial No. 1 dated April 1, 2011 and Serial No. 2140 dated May 7, 2011. The Department was also duly informed, by letters dated May 06, 2011 and May 31, 2011, about such reversal and payment of interest. Thereafter on August 8, 2011, a show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner wherein on the allegation that TSL appeared to have contravened the provisions of Rules 3, 4(7) and 9(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, inasmuch as, during the said period it had allegedly taken irregular and inadmissible CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. Thereafter on August 8, 2011, a show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner wherein on the allegation that TSL appeared to have contravened the provisions of Rules 3, 4(7) and 9(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, inasmuch as, during the said period it had allegedly taken irregular and inadmissible CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 6,96,10,852/ - (including education cess and secondary and higher education cess) on the strength of ISD invoices issued by its Head Office relating to service tax paid to intellectual property service as per Tata Brand Equity and Business Promotion Agreement dated December 18, 1988 with Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai and a proposed to disallow the same and recover from TSL under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules read with the Proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act and Section 73(1) of the Act, along with interest thereon. The show cause notice also proposed imposition of penalties under Section 78 of the Act and under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (in short, “Central Excise Rules”) and Rule 15A of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The said show cause notice upon reply being filed on May 17, 2012 by TSL was adjudicated upon and the adjudication order dated July 11, 2012 was passed by the Commissioner. 5. Being aggrieved thereby, TSL preferred an appeal against the same which result in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal by the impugned order, following the decisions of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and Gujarat High Court and the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal and finding the same ‘fully applicable” to the facts of the instant case held that the respondent, Tata Steel Limited, was entitled to distribute the credit of service tax paid in respect of service rendered under (a) Brand Equity and Business Promotion Agreement (in short, “BEBP’) entered into by and between the TSL and its holding company, Tata Sons Limited, exclusively to its Jamshedpur Steelworks during the relevant period being April, 2006 to March, 2011. The Tribunal further held that the service rendered by Tata Sons under the BEBP agreement dated December 08, 2018 was eligible as “input services” for TSL as the service tax paid is available as CENVAT credit to TSL under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal further held that the service rendered by Tata Sons under the BEBP agreement dated December 08, 2018 was eligible as “input services” for TSL as the service tax paid is available as CENVAT credit to TSL under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In coming to this decision the Tribunal applied the decision of its coordinate Bench on a similar issue in the case of Jubiliant Life Science Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, 2017 (3) GSTL 298(T); the appeal against which decision filed by the Department was dismissed by the Hon’b1e Supreme Court of India, with the finding that there was no merit in the appeal [Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax vs. Jubiliant Life Science Limited, 2019 (29) GSTL, J-74 (SC). The Tribunal accordingly allowed the appeal of TSL and held that the CENVAT credit amount involved had been correctly availed, distributed and utilized by TSL and hence the tax demanded and penalties imposed by the adjudication order of the Commissioner were unsustainable. The Tribunal, accordingly, set aside the said adjudication order with consequential relief, if any, to TSL. 6. After hearing the parties vide order dated 21.09.2022 following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court for consideration:- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata has erred by setting aside the OIO No.40/S.Tax/Commr/2012 dated 11.07.2012 by allowing the appellant M/s Tata Steel Limited, Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred as M/s TSL, Jamshedpur,) to take all the Cenvat Credit alone, whereas the services provided by M/s Tata Sons Limited to the separate registered units of Tata Steel Division (in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002) could not be linked in any manner with the production and business activities of M/s TSL, Jamshedpur as per the condition laid down in Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata has erred by holding that Companies Act, 1956 may supersede the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944/Finance Act, 1994 and the rules made there under in respect of laws and procedure of taxation?. 7. Mr. (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata has erred by holding that Companies Act, 1956 may supersede the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944/Finance Act, 1994 and the rules made there under in respect of laws and procedure of taxation?. 7. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned CESTAT, Kolkata has erred by setting aside the OIO No.40/S.Tax/Commr/2012 dated 11.07.2012 by allowing the appellant-M/s Tata Steel Limited, Jamshedpur to take all the CENVAT Credit alone; whereas the services provided by M/s Tata Sons Limited to the separate registered units of Tata Steel Division in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be linked in any manner with the production and business activities of M/s TSL, Jamshedpur as per the condition laid down in Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred by holding that Companies Act, 1956 may supersede the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944/Finance Act, 1994 and the rules made there under in respect of laws and procedure of taxation. Relying upon the aforesaid submissions he prays that the order passed by the commissioner be restored. 8. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that question of law (i) has been decided by the Tribunal on the basis of the relevant legal provisions which have received approval of, inter-alia, both the Hon'b1e Karnataka High Court and the Hon'b1e Gujarat High Court on the issue and that of the Tribunal, affirmed by the Apex Court. Further, other question has been decided by the Tribunal following the decisions of its coordinate Bench. All these decisions, including the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, have attained finality, either being affirmed by the Supreme Court or there being no appeal against the same preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India/ before the High Court against the order of the Tribunal. He strenuously contended that in the premises, as per principles settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court and followed by Hon’ble High Courts, Department having accepted the decisions, no interference with Tribunal’s decision is called for: In this regard he referred following decisions: (i) CCE & Cus. Vs. Precot Meridian Ltd., 2015 (325) ELT 234 (SC) (Para-3, 4 & 5). (ii) Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2005 (186) ELT 266 (SC) (para-5). Vs. Precot Meridian Ltd., 2015 (325) ELT 234 (SC) (Para-3, 4 & 5). (ii) Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2005 (186) ELT 266 (SC) (para-5). In this regard he also referred to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., ST & Cus. Bengaluru Vs. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd., 2022 (61) GSTL 417 (Kar) (para-8 to11). In so far as the Question of Law (ii) is concerned; it is submitted that it does not arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal and therefore it being a substantial question of law required to be decided by this Hon’b1e Court in the present proceedings cannot and does not arise. The said question of law has no relevance whatsoever in the instant case. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order and relevant documents on records; few provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules and other provision is required to be appreciated. Section 2(m) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 defines of “Input Service Distributor”. It makes it clear that the manufacturer or the producer of a final product or the provider of output service may have more than one unit which may be situated in various parts of the country. It is in this background that an input service distributor is defined as office of the manufacturer or producer of a final product or provider of output service which receives invoices issued under Rule 4A of the said Rules towards purchases of input service and issues invoice, bill or challan for the purpose of distributing the credit of service tax paid on the said service to such manufacturer or producer or the provider, as the case may be. Thus, the law mandates that the manufacturer who wants to avail benefit of this service tax, if he has more than one unit, should also get registered itself as a service provider, whereupon it would be able to collect the input service tax paid in all the units and accumulate them at its Head Office and thereafter distribute the said credit to its various units in the manner specified in Rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, which provide for only two limitations, viz., firstly it cannot exceed the amount of service tax paid and secondly the credit of service tax attributable to services used shall not be distributed in a unit exclusively engaged in the manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted service. It appears from record that except in respect of the service tax amounting to Rs.83,86,784/- which was attributable to West Bokaro and Jamadoba Collieries of TSL engaged in manufacture of exempted goods, which it, on its own, discovered as inadvertently wrongly taken CENVAT credit and duly reversed the same even before issuance of the show cause notice, along with appropriate interest thereon, the requirements contained in Rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules were duly satisfied. Hence, it appears that the credit was rightly distributed by the Head Office of TSL to the Jamshedpur Steelworks. 10. No provision of the CENVAT Credit Rules, including Rule 7, prohibits input service tax paid at a particular unit being sought to be availed in another unit. Once the manufacturer is registered as an input service distributor in terms of Rule 7, it is entitled to distribute the credit of duty paid on such inputs in the manner prescribed to any of its unit keeping into account the limitations imposed by Rule 7. The extraneous reasonings of the adjudicating authority contained in the said order are irrelevant and have no substance or merit whatsoever, particularly in view of the settled proposition of law in this respect. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of Commissioner of C.Ex. Bangalore Vs. ECOF Industries Pvt. Ltd., 2011 (271) ELT 58 (Kar) (Para-8 & 10) "8. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of Commissioner of C.Ex. Bangalore Vs. ECOF Industries Pvt. Ltd., 2011 (271) ELT 58 (Kar) (Para-8 & 10) "8. It is in this context, the definition of input service distributor makes it clear that a manufacturer or a producer of a final product or a provider of output service may have more than one unit and may be distributed in various parts of the country. It is in this background the definition of service distributor is defined as office of the manufacturer or producer of a final product or provider of output service which receives invoices issued under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 towards purchases of input services and issues invoice, bill or, as the case may be, challan for the purposes of distributing the credit of service tax paid on the said services to such manufacturer or producer or provider, as the case may be. Therefore, the law mandates that the manufacturer who wants to avail the benefit of this service tax if he has more than one unit he should also get registered himself as a service provider and then, he would be able to collect all the input service tax paid in all its units and accumulate them at its head office and distribute the said credit to its various units. At the time of distribution, the manner of distribution is provided in Rule 7 which reads as under :- "Rule 7. Manner of distribution of credit by input service distributor. The Input service distributor may distribute the CENVAT credit in respect of the service tax paid on the input service to its manufacturing units or units providing output service, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) the credit distributed against a document referred to in rule 9 does not exceed the amount of service tax paid thereon, or (b) credit of service tax attributable to service use in a unit exclusively engaged in manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services shall not be distributed." Therefore, only two limitations are put for the distribution of credit by an input service distributor. Firstly, it cannot exceed the amount of service tax paid and secondly, the credit of service tax attributable to service used shall not be distributed in a unit exclusively engaged in the manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services. Firstly, it cannot exceed the amount of service tax paid and secondly, the credit of service tax attributable to service used shall not be distributed in a unit exclusively engaged in the manufacture of exempted goods or providing of exempted services. 10. Therefore, these are the only two limitations, which are imposed in Rule 7 preventing the manufacturer from utilizing the CENVAT credit, otherwise, he is entitled to the said credit. Merely because the input service tax is paid at a particular unit and the benefit is sought to be availed at another unit, the same is not prohibited under law. It is in this context, the manufacturer is expected to register himself as a input service distributor and thereafter, he is entitled to distribution of credit of such input in the manner prescribed under law. Therefore, the order passed by the tribunal is legal and valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity and does not call for any interference and therefore it is dismissed." The same view is reiterated in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex Vs. ECOF Industries Pvt. Ltd., 2012 (277) ELT 317 (Kar) & United Phosphorus Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex, 2013 (30) STR 509 (T). 11. In the instant case, the company Tata Steel Limited, which is duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 as a public limited company has various divisions/units situated in various parts of the country. The registered and Head Office of the company, including of the said divisions/units, is at Mumbai, the ISD in the instant case. It is settled proposition of law that divisions and units of a company are not separate legal entities/persons. They are part and parcel of the same legal entity, the company, of which they are divisions/units. None of them can be termed as a company as per the Companies Act, 1956 and, as such, under any law of the country. As such, the divisions/units becoming companies of “Tata Steel Group”, erroneously held in the impugned order of commissioner, cannot and does not arise. Registration separately as per the provision of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Finance Act 1944 as per the requirement of the said statutes and/or the rules framed thereunder cannot and does not alter this settled legal position. In this respect reference may be made to the decisions of the Tribunal in Sahara India Commercial Corporation Vs. Registration separately as per the provision of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Finance Act 1944 as per the requirement of the said statutes and/or the rules framed thereunder cannot and does not alter this settled legal position. In this respect reference may be made to the decisions of the Tribunal in Sahara India Commercial Corporation Vs. Commr. of C.Ex, 2019 (21) GSTL 170 (Tri-Mumbai), paras 2 & 7 and Mahindra Logistics Ltd. Vs. CC, Ex. & ST, 2012-TIOL- 1919-CESTAT-MUM, Para-6. 12. The restriction on distribution of credit to only unit/units receiving the particular service having been introduced by the Finance Bill, 2012, with effect from April 1, 2012, it is clear and evident that there was no such restriction prior to April 1, 2012. This is a settled principle of interpretation of statutory provisions. This also establishes that the cenvat credit distributed by the ISD in the instant case, viz., Head Office of TSL at Mumbai to the Jamshedpur Steelworks is legal, valid, proper and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dashion Ltd., 2016-TIOL-111-HC-AHM-ST where in Para-7 & 8 it has been held by Gujarat High Court as under: "7. The second objection of the Revenue as noted was with respect of non-registration of the unit as input senice distributor. It is true that the Govemment had framed Rules of 2005 for registration of input service distributors, who would have to make application to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise in terms of Rule 3 thereof. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 further required any provider of taxable service whose aggregate value of taxable service exceeds certain limit to make an application for registration within the time prescribed. However, there is nothing in the said Rules of 2005 or in the Rules of 2004 which would automatically and without any additional reasons dis-entitle an input service distributor from avalling Cenvat credit unless and until such registration was applied and granted. It was in this background that the Tribunal viewed the requirement as curable. However, there is nothing in the said Rules of 2005 or in the Rules of 2004 which would automatically and without any additional reasons dis-entitle an input service distributor from avalling Cenvat credit unless and until such registration was applied and granted. It was in this background that the Tribunal viewed the requirement as curable. Particularly when it was found that full records were maintained and the inegularity, if at all, was procedural and when it was further found that the records were available for the Revenus to verify the correctness, the Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly did not dis-entitle the assessee from the entire Canvat credit availed for payment of duty. Question No.1 therefore shall have to be answered in favour of the respondent and against the assessee. 8. Coming to the question of penalty, right from the show cause notice stage till the final disposal of the show cause notice proceedings, we find little evidence to support the allegations of willful misstatement, suppression, fraud or collusion on the part of the assessee. In fact, perusal of the show cause notice would show that the entire basis of the Revenue was wrongfully availment of the credit. Mere wrongfully avaiment without element of mens rea and that too for the purpose of evading payment of duty would not be sufficient to impose penalty. The adjudicating authority, without any basis or evidence, merely mechanically recorded that the assessee had, by reason of willful misstatement, suppression of fact or in contravention of the provisions of the Rules, evaded payment of central excise duty. He was not even sure whether this was a case of willful misstatement or suppression of fact or contravention of provisions of the Rules." At the cost of repetition, the subject service, BEBP, on which service tax is paid upon classification as ‘intellectual property services” under Section 65(105)(zzy) of the Act. From the Agreement it would be seen that it allows user by the appellant of the “Tata” brand name, on its products/goods manufactured at its factory in Jamshedpur. This enhances the marketability of the said goods. Thus, the said services have been used by the assessee, the manufacturer indirectly in relation to the manufacture of final dutiable products in its factory, satisfying the requirement of the main part of Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. This enhances the marketability of the said goods. Thus, the said services have been used by the assessee, the manufacturer indirectly in relation to the manufacture of final dutiable products in its factory, satisfying the requirement of the main part of Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The said service is also undisputedly a service use in relation to the business of manufacture of the said goods indirectly, thus satisfying the requirement of the inclusive part of the definition of Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Hence, the said service duly qualifies “input service” under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. In this respect reference is made to the decisions of the Tribunal which was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. C.Ex. & S.T., Noida 2017 (3) GSTL 298 (Tri-All). 13. It is also well settled, that once the decision of Tribunal has been accepted by the department in any other case; it cannot reagitate the same issue in another case. In this respect reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE & Cus. Vs. Precot Meridian Ltd., 2015 (325) ELT 234 (SC). For brevity, Para-3, 4 & 5 is extracted herein below: "3. We note that five member bench of the Tribunal in the case of 'Franco Italian Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner'[ 2000 (120) E.L.T. 792 (T-LB)] had taken the view that even if the MODVAT credit was utilised but, thereafter refunded it would amount to not utilising the said MODVAT credit. Same view has been taken by the High Court of Allahabad in 'Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. v. Union of India' [ 2004 (174) E.L.T. 422 (All.)] 4. On a specific query put by the Court , we were informed that as far as the aforesaid two judgments are concerned, they were accepted by the Department and no appeal was filed thereagainst. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee relying upon the aforesaid two decisions. 5. We, thus, do not find any reason to interfere with this order. This appeal is dismissed accordingly” 14. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee relying upon the aforesaid two decisions. 5. We, thus, do not find any reason to interfere with this order. This appeal is dismissed accordingly” 14. It further transpires from record that the credit of Rs.83,86,784/ - having been reversed along with interest as applicable by TSL on April 1, 2011 and May 7, 2011 respectively, prior to the issuance of the show cause notice on August 8, 2011, the question of including the same in the show cause notice demand and/or seeking to confirm and appropriate the said already reversed and paid amount along with interest as a part of the confirmed demand by the adjudication order is also contrary to law, untenable and unsustainable. Neither Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act nor Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended, provided, during the material period, for issuance of a show cause notice in respect of duty of excise or service tax, credit whereof had been availed wrongly but which was reversed or paid back prior to issuance of the show cause notice. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussions made hereinabove the questions of law as formulated in the instant appeal is decided against the Revenue. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed.