2015 (10) TMI 1138 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules interest on utilized amount, allows Cenvat credit, emphasizes legal precedents

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that interest should only be paid on the amount actually utilized and no penalty should be imposed. ... Demand of CENVAT Credit along with interest - whether the appellant is liable to the interest on ₹ 1,58,775/- or ₹ 48,386/- during the intervening period. - Held that:- I have gone through the decision of Ind-swift Laboratories (supra) and decision of Strategic Engineering (supra) wherein the decision of Ind-swift Laboratories was considered and thereafter relying on the decision of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon ble High Court have considered the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. [2011 (2) TMI 6 - Supreme Court] and held that if the Cenvat credit availed by the assessee wrongly but same has been reversed before utilization of the same, no interest is payable by the assessee. In these circumstances, relying on the decision of Strategic Engineering P Ltd. (2014 (11) TMI 89 - MADRAS HIGH COURT), I hold that appellant is required to pay interest only on ₹ 48,386/- during the intervening period. - Therefore, if the appellant is not contesting the merits of the case, the penalty is not imposable on the appellant in the light of M/s. Atul Ltd. vs. CCE, Surat [2012 (10) TMI 826 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD]. Therefore, I hold that penalty on the appellant is not imposable. - Appeal disposed of. Issues:Denial of Cenvat credit on services availed by the appellant, liability for interest on the inadmissible credit amount, imposition of penalty on the appellant.Analysis:The appellant appealed against the denial of Cenvat credit on services like insurance, audit, and transportation, as they were working as a job worker under exemption Notification No. 214/86 and clearing goods without duty payment to the principal manufacturer. The show cause notice was issued in 2011, leading to the denial of Cenvat credit by the Commissioner, along with interest and penalty. The appellant had already reversed the Cenvat credit but contested the interest amount based on previous court decisions. The appellant argued for interest payment only on the utilized amount, citing relevant case laws. The opposing counsel argued that interest should be paid on the entire inadmissible credit amount due to the appellant's actions and suppression of facts. The issue of penalty imposition was also raised during the arguments.The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the appellant had reversed the Cenvat credit before the show cause notice was issued, focusing on the interest amount dispute. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal determined that interest should only be paid on the amount actually utilized by the appellant. Additionally, it was noted that the appellant was entitled to take Cenvat credit on input services as per relevant case laws, leading to the conclusion that no penalty should be imposed on the appellant. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal precedents and interpretations, ultimately disposing of the appeal in favor of the appellant without imposing any penalty.In conclusion, the Tribunal resolved the issues of interest payment and penalty imposition in the appellant's favor based on the reversal of Cenvat credit before utilization, along with the appellant's entitlement to take Cenvat credit on input services as per legal precedents. The decision highlighted the importance of following legal interpretations and case laws in determining the liabilities of the appellant in such matters.