Tribunal overturns penalty for double credit error, citing lack of intent to evade duty.

The tribunal set aside the mandatory penalty imposed on the appellant for taking double credit on the same document during 2005-2006 under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite the confirmation of the demand and appropriation of amounts paid, the tribunal found no evidence of intent to evade duty, considering the prompt payment post-detection and the appellant's argument of unintentional mistakes due to manual record-keeping and document volume. As a result, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Double credit taken on the same document during 2005-2006.
2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The officers found instances of double credit taken on the same document by the appellants during 2005-2006. The Manager-Excise of the appellant admitted to these instances, attributing them to bona fide mistakes due to manual record maintenance and a large volume of documents. Despite the appellant's prompt payment with interest before the show-cause notice, proceedings were initiated, resulting in the confirmation of demand, appropriation of amounts paid, and the imposition of an equal penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The appellant contended that the mistakes were unintentional, as evidenced by the immediate payment post-detection, indicating no intention to evade duty. The appellant argued that there was no evidence of intent to evade duty, as the requirement to provide Cenvat credit invoice-wise and document-wise was not breached. The Manager-Excise's statement supported the claim of a bona fide mistake caused by manual record-keeping and a high document volume. The tribunal acknowledged the appellant's position, noting the absence of evidence indicating an intent to evade duty. Consequently, the mandatory penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---