Tribunal grants CENVAT credit to Sponge Iron manufacturers in duty dispute appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the appellants, who were engaged in the manufacture of Sponge Iron, in a case involving differential duty and CENVAT credit. The Tribunal ruled that the appellants were entitled to the CENVAT credit of duty paid on imported goods under re-assessment, emphasizing that there was no suppression or fraud in availing the credit. It held that Rule 9(1)(b) of CCR, 2004 was not applicable in this re-assessment scenario and that no penalty could be imposed for duty evasion. The impugned orders were set aside, granting relief to the appellants.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of appeals by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding differential duty and CENVAT credit availed by the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of Sponge Iron, were investigated for importing Bituminous coal as Steam coal to avail duty benefits. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) proposing reclassification and demanding differential duty. The appellants voluntarily paid the duty and claimed CENVAT credit. Subsequently, a second SCN was issued demanding recovery of CENVAT credit with interest and penalty under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004. The Deputy Commissioner disallowed the credit and imposed penalties, leading to the appeal.

2. The appellants argued that the impugned order failed to consider their submissions and misinterpreted Rule 9 (1) (b) of CCR, 2004 regarding availing credit on re-assessment. They contended that the credit availed was legitimate as there was no suppression or fraud. They cited precedents supporting their position, emphasizing the admissibility of credit on duty paid under re-assessment.

3. The Department defended the impugned order, asserting the ineligibility of CENVAT credit post-offence detection. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants had imported coal as Steam coal for years before the investigation. The Tribunal noted that the case involved a re-assessment situation, entitling the appellants to the CENVAT credit of duty paid on imported goods.

4. The Tribunal ruled that Rule 9 (1) (b) of CCR was not applicable as the credit was based on re-assessment, not sales transactions. It also found no suppression by the appellants to evade duty payment, as all details were declared during import clearance. Citing the Essar Oil Ltd. case, the Tribunal held that credit on duty paid under re-assessment is admissible under Rule 9 (1) (c) of CCR. Additionally, following the Coastal Energy Pvt. Ltd. case, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty could be imposed under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of mens-rea for duty evasion.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals of the appellants with any necessary consequential relief. The decision was pronounced in Open Court on 17/05/2019.

---