Tribunal overturns penalty for CENVAT credit error, emphasizing appellant's compliance and lack of intent

The tribunal set aside the penalty imposition on the appellant for irregular CENVAT credit availed, noting the appellant's prompt rectification of the irregular credit upon audit observation. The tribunal found no evidence of intentional duty evasion, emphasizing the voluntary reversal of credit and partial penalty payment made by the appellant. Relying on precedent judgments, the tribunal concluded that the penalty imposition was unwarranted, ultimately allowing the appeal of the appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of appellant's appeal challenging imposition of penalty for irregular CENVAT credit availed.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, availed excess credit, utilized credit without availability, and took a wrong opening balance of service tax credit. A show-cause notice was issued for recovery of wrongly availed CENVAT credit along with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty under Rule 15(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant challenged the penalty imposition before the Commissioner.

2. The appellant argued that the penalty imposition was unsustainable as they had reversed the irregular credit along with interest before the show-cause notice. They contended that the omission was unintentional, and there was no intention to evade duty. The appellant's counsel cited various decisions supporting their position, emphasizing the voluntary reversal of credit and the lack of evidence showing intent to evade duty.

3. The respondent defended the penalty imposition, acknowledging the reversal of credit by the appellant before the show-cause notice. The respondent highlighted that the appellant had paid 25% of the penalty voluntarily as directed by the original authority.

4. After considering the arguments and case records, the tribunal noted that the appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, had promptly rectified the irregular credit upon audit observation. The tribunal found no evidence of intentional evasion of duty and observed that the appellant had complied with the reversal and partial penalty payment. Relying on precedent judgments, the tribunal concluded that the penalty imposition was unwarranted in the circumstances. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellant.

---