Tribunal sets aside irregular Cenvat credit demand, rejects penalty. Appellant followed reversal process, lacked fraud evidence.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for irregular Cenvat credit belonging to another unit and rejecting the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. The decision was based on the appellant's adherence to the reversal process under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the absence of evidence indicating fraud or willful misstatement.

---

---

Issues:
- Confirmation of demand of irregular Cenvat credit belonging to another unit
- Applicability of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
- Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act

Confirmation of demand of irregular Cenvat credit belonging to another unit:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Biscuits, appealed against the confirmation of demand of irregular Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 4,62,741 belonging to another unit for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15. The dispute arose from invoices raised by suppliers on the Orissa unit of the appellant under the West Bengal unit registration. The appellant contended that it followed the process of proportionate reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant had already reversed the maximum total credits for FY 2014-15 and contended that any further reversal cannot exceed the remaining amount after the initial reversal, which was done with interest. For FY 2013-14, the appellant had already reversed the total amount with interest. The Tribunal examined the appellant's compliance with the reversal process and held that the appellant cannot be asked to pay more than the availed Cenvat credit. Referring to a previous decision, the Tribunal emphasized that Rule 6 aims to prevent availing Cenvat credit for exempted goods, not to extract illegal amounts from the assessee. Therefore, the demand was set aside based on the appellant's adherence to the reversal procedure.

Applicability of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The Tribunal analyzed the appellant's compliance with Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which pertains to the proportionate reversal of Cenvat credit. The appellant provided a CA certificate and a verification report from the Range office demonstrating the reversal of Cenvat credit for FY 2014-15 as per the prescribed procedure. Relying on the evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had indeed followed the process of proportionate reversal under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal's decision was guided by the principle that an assessee should not be required to reverse more than the actual Cenvat credit availed, ensuring compliance with the legislative intent behind Rule 6.

Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act:
Regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, the Tribunal noted that the disputed amount had been paid before the issuance of the show cause notice, with the entire amount paid along with interest. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the payment of duty as equivalent to payment of central excise duty under Section 11A (2B) of the Act, suggesting that the show cause notice should not have been issued. Additionally, the Tribunal found no conclusive evidence of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC unwarranted, leading to the allowance of the appellant's appeal.

Overall, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for irregular Cenvat credit and rejecting the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act based on the appellant's compliance with the reversal process and lack of evidence supporting penalty imposition.

---