TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds interest charge but sets aside penalty for wrongly availed cenvat credit</h1> <h3>Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II</h3> Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II - TMI Issues:1. Charging of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Penalty under Rule 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.Analysis:Issue 1: Charging of InterestThe appellant wrongly availed cenvat credit twice on the same invoice, which was noticed by audit officers. The appellant paid the wrong credit amount but did not discharge the interest liability. The question was whether interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act was applicable. The appellant argued that since the credit was not utilized and was maintained in the balance, no interest should be charged. However, the tribunal held that as per Rule 14, interest is chargeable from the date of taking credit, even if not utilized. Citing the case law of Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd., the tribunal concluded that interest was legally chargeable on the wrongly availed credit.Issue 2: Penalty ImpositionThe tribunal considered the penalty imposed under Rule 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant contended that there was no malafide intention, and the error was due to inadvertence, not an attempt to evade duty. Additionally, being a Public Sector Undertaking and a significant revenue contributor, the appellant's lack of malafide intent was highlighted. Relying on this, the tribunal set aside the penalty, stating that the appellant's actions did not warrant its imposition. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was partly allowed in favor of the appellant.In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the charging of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, but set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The judgment was pronounced on 17/05/2018 by the tribunal.
TaxTMI 