Interest on delayed Cenvat reversal needs factual verification, while voluntary credit reversal defeats penalty in job work cases.

Interest on Cenvat credit for inputs sent to job workers and returned after 180 days required factual verification of whether sufficient credit was available during the relevant period; the interest demand was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on that point. Penalty was not sustainable because the goods were ultimately received back, the credit reversal or duty payment was voluntary, and the record did not show deliberate misuse of the Cenvat scheme; the penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interest was payable on Cenvat credit relating to inputs sent to job workers and reversed after expiry of 180 days, when the goods were subsequently received back; (ii) whether penalty was sustainable in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether interest was payable on Cenvat credit relating to inputs sent to job workers and reversed after expiry of 180 days, when the goods were subsequently received back.

Analysis: The inputs were sent for processing under Rule 4(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and were ultimately received back, though in some instances after 180 days. The disputed issue was whether interest could be recovered for the intervening period. The factual plea was that sufficient credit was available in the Cenvat account during the relevant period, but that aspect had not been specifically examined by the authorities below. The question therefore required factual verification before any recovery of interest could be sustained.

Conclusion: The demand of interest was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on the factual question of availability of sufficient credit.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was sustainable in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The goods sent for processing were received back and the credit reversed or duty paid was done voluntarily. The delayed return of some consignments did not, on the facts found, justify treating the credit as wrongly taken in a manner warranting penalty. Since the record showed return of the goods and no basis for inferring deliberate misuse, the penal consequence was not justified.

Conclusion: The penalties were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The dispute ended with penalty relief granted in full and the interest issue sent back for reconsideration, leaving only a partial substantive relief in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where inputs sent to job workers under the Cenvat scheme are ultimately received back and credit reversal is made voluntarily, penalty is not warranted absent misuse, and interest recovery on delayed reversal requires factual verification of the credit position.

---