Cenvat credit principles on duty paid supplies and VCES disclosure led to partial relief, with penalty partly deleted.

Cenvat credit was admissible on duty paid by indigenous suppliers to a 100% EOU because the duty was actually paid, and credit could not be denied merely on the ground that exemption may have been available to the supplier; the related demand and penalty were set aside. By contrast, credit on service tax later disclosed under the VCES scheme was denied because the disclosure reflected prior non-payment amounting to suppression or misstatement, so the corresponding demand and interest were upheld. Penalty on this second issue was nevertheless deleted as the dispute was interpretative and no mala fides were established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on duty paid by indigenous suppliers to a 100% EOU where the Revenue contended that the suppliers ought to have availed exemption; (ii) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on service tax paid by the head office under the VCES scheme and whether penalty was imposable thereon.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on duty paid by indigenous suppliers to a 100% EOU where the Revenue contended that the suppliers ought to have availed exemption.

Analysis: The duty payment by the supplier was undisputed. The objection that the supplier should have claimed exemption was not raised when the duty was accepted, and the DGFT circular relied upon by the Revenue had no bearing on the availment of credit. Following the earlier Tribunal view on the same issue, credit could not be denied merely because the supplier might have been eligible for exemption.

Conclusion: Credit was held admissible and the duty demand and penalty on this count were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on service tax paid by the head office under the VCES scheme and whether penalty was imposable thereon.

Analysis: The head office had not discharged the tax in the relevant period and later declared the liability under VCES. The scheme disclosure showed prior non-payment amounting to suppression or misstatement, and the Cenvat credit rules did not permit credit in such circumstances. The circular relied upon by the appellant did not override that position. However, the dispute was one of legal interpretation and no mala fides were established for penalty purposes.

Conclusion: Credit was denied and the corresponding demand with interest was upheld, but the penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, with relief granted on the first demand and penalty, while the second credit disallowance and interest were sustained and penalty was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied on duty validly paid by a supplier merely because an exemption was available, but credit is unavailable where the underlying tax liability was discharged only after disclosure of prior non-payment amounting to suppression or misstatement; penalty may still be waived where the dispute is interpretative and mala fides are absent.

---