Interest cannot be demanded on irregular CENVAT credit that was availed but not utilized

CESTAT Chennai held that interest cannot be demanded on irregular CENVAT credit that was availed but not utilized. The appellant had reversed wrongly taken credit before utilizing it for duty payment and prior to show cause notice issuance. The tribunal found no intent to evade tax as credit was never used, accounts were regularly audited, and returns filed periodically. Extended period invocation was unjustified since credit reversal occurred before departmental action. Demand for ineligible credit was upheld but interest demand and penalty were set aside. Appeal allowed partially.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether interest is demandable on irregular CENVAT Credit availed but not utilizedRs.
2. Whether invocation of the extended period of time and imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is justifiedRs.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether interest is demandable on irregular CENVAT Credit availed but not utilizedRs.

The appellant, M/s. Mobis India Ltd., reversed the irregularly availed CENVAT Credit and the applicable interest upon being pointed out during the audit. The lower adjudicating authority interpreted Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which states that interest is recoverable on credit "taken or utilized wrongly." However, the Tribunal found that several case laws, including Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, LTU, Bangalore Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (279) ELT 209 (Kar.)], support the view that mere taking of CENVAT Credit without utilization does not attract interest liability. The Tribunal cited multiple judgments, including those from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, which consistently held that interest is not payable if the wrong credit is reversed before utilization. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the recovery of interest was not legally justified and maintainable.

Issue 2: Whether invocation of the extended period of time and imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is justifiedRs.

The appellant reversed the entire wrongly availed CENVAT Credit and applicable interest before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The extended period was invoked, and penalties were imposed based on the alleged intent to evade tax. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had enough credit balance and did not utilize the irregularly availed credit for duty payment. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's actions were due to an employee's negligence, and disciplinary action was taken against the employee. Citing the decision in Synthokem Labs Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [Excise Appeal No. 30595/2019], the Tribunal emphasized that mere omission or clerical error without intent to evade duty does not justify invoking the extended period or imposing penalties. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that invoking the extended period and imposing penalties was not justified.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the demand of Rs.1,87,69,233/- being the ineligible credit availed by the appellant and its appropriation. However, the demand for recovery of interest on such ineligible CENVAT Credit availed but not utilized, along with the penalty imposed, was set aside. The appeal was partly allowed with consequential relief as per law.

(Order pronounced in open court on 09.11.2023)

---