2022 (11) TMI 794 - HC - Central Excise

High Court upholds Tribunal's decision on Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizes compliance with statutory provisions

The Commissioner of Central Excise Central Revenue Building, Tirunelveli Versus Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.

The Commissioner of Central Excise Central Revenue Building, Tirunelveli Versus Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. - TMI Issues:- Challenge to order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal- Demand of amount equivalent to 10% of value of exempted goods under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004- Interpretation of Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 2010- Applicability of interest rate for delayed payment- Precedent cases and their impact on the present appealAnalysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, challenging the dropping of proceedings against the respondent for a demand of Rs.1,09,00,260 under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent, by reversing the credit with interest before the show cause notice was issued, had complied with Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 2010. This led to the appeal before the High Court to determine whether the respondent could avail of this benefit without paying the full 24% interest as required.3. The appellant argued that the respondent did not pay the full 24% interest as mandated by the amendment to the Finance Act, 2010, and therefore should not benefit from Section 73(2). In contrast, the respondent relied on previous judgments to support their position that the interest rate amendment should not apply retroactively in this case.4. The High Court analyzed the relevant judgments, including Commissioner of Central Excise vs. ICMC Corporation Ltd. and C.C.E. vs. Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Limited, which emphasized the need for the assessee to reverse the credit before the amendment to the Finance Act, 2010, for the interest rate change to be applicable.5. Based on the precedents and the facts of the case, the High Court found that the respondent had complied with the requirements of Section 73(2) before the amendment came into effect. Therefore, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal and stating that there was no error in the final order.6. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely compliance with statutory provisions and the impact of relevant amendments on the rights of the parties involved.