2014 (1) TMI 3 - AT - Central Excise

Court Upholds 50% Cenvat Credit, Rejects Penalty for Excess Credit Usage

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT - 2013 (294) E.L.T. 303 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:Availing Cenvat credit of duty on capital goods, denial of balance 50% credit, confirmation of interest, imposition of penalty, mala fide intent, timing of credit availment, applicability of Section 11AC for penalty.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the issue of availing Cenvat credit of duty on capital goods. The appellant had availed 100% credit in the first year instead of the prescribed 50% in the first year and the remaining 50% in the next financial year as per Rule 4(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Proceedings were initiated to deny the balance 50% credit, resulting in confirmation of the 50% credit against the appellant along with interest and penalty of the same amount.2. It was established that the appellant indeed availed the entire 100% Cenvat credit in the first year, contrary to the rule requiring 50% credit in the first year and the balance in the subsequent year. However, the fact that the balance 50% credit was available in the next financial year meant that the demand for duty could not be confirmed solely based on the timing of credit availment.3. The judgment delves into the issue of interest due to the excess availed credit. The appellant's full utilization of 100% credit in the first year, instead of the stipulated 50%, led to an excess of 50% credit. As the appellant was liable for interest on the excess credit availed, the interest was confirmed against them.4. Regarding the penalty, the appellant argued against any mala fide intent in availing the excess credit. The timing of credit availment was the primary dispute, with the Revenue challenging the appellant's actions. However, since the credit was duly recorded in statutory records without any malicious intent, the penalty imposition was deemed unnecessary.5. The judgment references precedents like the case of V.V.F. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Daman and C.C.E., Pune v. Panse Autocomp Pvt. Ltd. to support the decision. These cases highlighted that the mere timing of credit availment, without any fraudulent intent, did not warrant penalties under Section 11AC. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside based on established legal principles.6. Ultimately, the judgment concluded by setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, aligning with the legal precedents and the absence of mala fide intent in the appellant's actions. The appeal was disposed of based on the above considerations, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory provisions while considering penalties in such cases.