CENVAT credit on electricity wheeled out or sold: reversal treated as non-availment, so demand, penalty and interest set aside.

Irregular availment of CENVAT credit attributable to electricity wheeled out or sold was examined; the appellate tribunal accepted that monthly reversal of credit recorded in ER-1 returns and replies negates wrongful availment, so demands for credit in respect of electricity sold to the State Electricity Board are set aside. The tribunal applied settled precedent treating reversal of credit as equivalent to non-availment, consequently holding that penalty under rule 15(1) and section 11AC is inapplicable because credit was not utilized wrongly, and interest under section 11AA/read with relevant rules cannot be sustained where input and input service credit was reversed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of CENVAT credit attributable to electricity sold to the State Electricity Board is sustainable where the appellant had reversed such credit; (ii) Whether penalty under rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 can be imposed where credit was reversed; (iii) Whether interest under section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is recoverable where credit reversal amounts to non-availment.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of CENVAT credit attributable to electricity sold to the State Electricity Board is sustainable where the appellant had reversed such credit.

Analysis: The issue was examined on the record of monthly reversals and ER-1 returns showing reversal of input and input service credit attributable to electricity sold to the State Electricity Board. Prior authoritative decisions establishing that reversal of credit on a monthly basis amounts to non-availment were applied. The Commissioners finding that reversal details were not furnished was held to be contrary to the documentary record and earlier Tribunal/High Court decisions relied upon in the proceedings.

Conclusion: The demand of CENVAT credit in respect of electricity sold to the State Electricity Board is not sustainable and is set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 can be imposed where credit was reversed.

Analysis: Rule 15(1) applies where the assessee has taken or utilised CENVAT credit wrongly. Given that the credit attributable to electricity sold was reversed and treated as non-availment, the precondition for imposing penalty under rule 15(1) did not exist. Relevant precedents and the record of reversal were considered in this context.

Conclusion: The imposition of penalty under rule 15(1) read with section 11AC is not justified and is set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest under section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is recoverable where credit reversal amounts to non-availment.

Analysis: Interest under section 11AA and rule 14 is founded on recovery of wrongly availed credit. Where reversal of credit effectively amounts to non-availment, recovery of interest is not sustainable. The tribunals earlier conclusion in the appellants own case on identical facts was applied.

Conclusion: Recovery of interest under section 11AA read with rule 14 cannot be sustained and is set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order confirming demand, interest and penalty is set aside and the appeals are allowed, resulting in the extinguishment of the assessed liability arising from the credits reversed on electricity sold to the State Electricity Board.

Ratio Decidendi: Reversal of CENVAT credit on a monthly basis, corroborated in statutory returns, amounts to non-availment of such credit and precludes recovery of duty, interest under section 11AA and penalty under rule 15(1) where reversal is duly recorded.

---