Appellant's Stay Petition Granted, Interest Waiver Allowed, Penalty Set Aside

The appellant's Stay Petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of interest and penalty was allowed, with the interest liability of Rs.53,913/- to be deposited within thirty days. The appeal was rejected concerning the reversal of CENVAT Credit, confirming the demand amount of Rs.6,80,67/-. The penalty imposed was set aside due to the appellant's prompt rectification of the error and willingness to discharge the interest liability, resulting in a favorable outcome for the appellant in the case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of CENVAT Credit, interest, and penalty.
2. Contesting interest and penalty only.
3. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on various services.
4. Confirmation of demand.
5. Interest liability on CENVAT Credit.
6. Penalty imposed under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a Stay Petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of CENVAT Credit, interest, and penalty. The appellant had already reversed the CENVAT Credit but contested interest and penalty only.

2. The authorized representatives of the company clarified that they were not contesting the reversal of CENVAT Credit but were disputing the interest and penalty aspects. The appeal was considered for disposal after allowing the Stay Petition for waiver of pre-deposit of interest and penalty.

3. The issue revolved around the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on services like courier, telephone, and security services. The appellant acknowledged an ineligible CENVAT Credit availed on invoices not in their name, leading to a demand of Rs.6,80,67/-.

4. The appeal was rejected concerning the reversal of CENVAT Credit, upholding the lower authorities' order for the confirmation of the demand amount.

5. Regarding the interest demand, the appellant accepted their ineligibility for the CENVAT Credit, resulting in an interest liability of Rs.53,913/-, which they were directed to deposit within thirty days.

6. The penalty was imposed under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, along with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, considering the circumstances where the appellant had rectified the error promptly and was willing to discharge the interest liability, the equivalent penalty was deemed unwarranted and set aside.

7. The appellant's appeal against the penalty was allowed, and the impugned order imposing the penalty was set aside, providing a comprehensive resolution to the issues raised in the case.

---