Rectification of mistake granted with interest payment due to lack of supporting data

The Rectification of Mistake application was granted, with interest payment required due to lack of supporting data on substantial balance in the Cenvat credit register. The penalty was set aside based on the debatable nature of the issues and the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking.

---

---

Issues involved: Rectification of Mistake regarding interest and penalty in Cenvat credit order.

Analysis:
- The Rectification of Mistake application was filed concerning an order dated 29.11.2017, focusing on interest and penalty issues related to Cenvat credit. The appellant argued that no findings were provided on interest and penalty in the impugned order, which only addressed the admissibility of Cenvat credit. The appellant cited a Supreme Court decision to support the claim that no penalty should be imposed in the absence of malafide intent. Regarding interest, it was contended that as there was always a significant balance in the Cenvat credit register, no interest should be demanded.

- The Member (Technical) considered the arguments presented in the Rectification of Mistake application and observed that the impugned order lacked findings on interest and penalty. Consequently, paragraphs 9A and 9B were added to the order. In paragraph 9A, it was noted that the appellant failed to provide any data to support the claim of having a substantial balance throughout the period, leading to the decision that interest must be paid on the confirmed amounts. Paragraph 9B addressed the imposition of penalty, with the appellant arguing that the issues were debatable and penalty should not be imposed. Relying on legal precedents and the nature of the appellant as a public sector undertaking, the Member agreed that no blatant availment of credit was evident, setting aside the imposed penalty.

- The Rectification of Mistake application was disposed of based on the above considerations, with the operative part pronounced in court. The decision clarified the requirement for interest payment due to lack of substantiating data and the setting aside of the penalty based on the debatable nature of the issues and the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking.

---