Tribunal overturns demand for 10% penalty on CENVAT credit irregularity

The Tribunal set aside the demand of 10% of the value of exempted products and the penalty imposed under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants had availed CENVAT credit on input services used for both dutiable and exempted products without separate accounts but reversed the credit for common input services. The Tribunal held that since the appellants rectified the irregular credit availed, the demand for payment was unjust. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.

---

---

Issues:
- Availment of CENVAT credit on input services used for both dutiable and exempted products without maintaining separate accounts
- Demand of 10% of the value of exempted products due to failure to maintain separate accounts
- Re-credit taken by the appellant for certain services falling under Rule 6(5)
- Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
- Appeal against the demand and penalty

Analysis:
1. The appellants availed CENVAT credit on input services used for both dutiable and exempted products without maintaining separate accounts. A show cause notice was issued proposing a demand of 10% of the value of exempted products cleared for a specific period. The appellants had reversed the credit availed on all input services used commonly for both types of products. The original authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading the appellants to appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the issue of whether the appellants are liable to pay 10% of the value of exempted goods after reversing the credit has been settled by various legal precedents. The counsel pointed out that the show cause notice alleged the liability based on the failure to maintain separate accounts for specific services. The appellants had taken re-credit for services falling under Rule 6(5) without any irregularity mentioned in the notice. The counsel contended that since the appellants had reversed the credit not eligible for them, the demand for payment of 10% of the value of goods is unjust. The counsel cited a relevant legal case to support this argument.

3. The Additional Commissioner reiterated the findings in the impugned order during the hearing. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the appellants had indeed availed input service tax credit on common input services used for both types of products. Upon realizing their eligibility for credit on certain services, the appellants took re-credit for those services. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents to support the decision that the demand for 10% of the value of clearances should be set aside since the appellants had rectified the irregular credit availed. The Tribunal concluded that the demand could not be sustained, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the appeal with any consequential relief as per law.

---