Concessional CVD credit entitlement remains available, while extended limitation and major penalties fail absent supporting grounds.

CENVAT credit on countervailing duty paid on imported steam coal at a concessional rate is described as admissible because additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act retains its character as customs duty equivalent in nature to excise duty, and credit is not defeated merely by a reduced rate under a customs notification. The text also states that where multiple exemption notifications are available, the importer may choose the beneficial notification, and credit remains available if Rule 3 and Rule 9 conditions are met. On limitation and penalty, it notes that the extended period was considered not invocable for the civil construction-related credit dispute, major penalties were treated as unsustainable, and only a reduced residual penalty was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on countervailing duty paid on imported steam coal at a concessional rate under the customs notification; and (ii) whether the extended period and penalty were sustainable, including the penalty reduced in respect of the remaining credit dispute.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on countervailing duty paid on imported steam coal at a concessional rate under the customs notification.

Analysis: The levy under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 remains additional duty of customs, and the expression equivalent to duty of excise refers to the nature of the levy rather than parity in rate. The availability of more than one notification entitled the importer to choose the beneficial notification. Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits credit of such additional duty, and no violation of the prescribed conditions under Rule 9 was shown. The issue was also covered by earlier decisions holding that concessional rate of CVD does not by itself defeat credit entitlement.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on CVD paid at the concessional rate was admissible and the denial of credit was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period and penalty were sustainable, including the penalty reduced in respect of the remaining credit dispute.

Analysis: For the civil construction-related credit dispute, the Court found no basis to invoke the extended period and held that penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not justified in full. However, considering the nature of the assessee and the circumstances, complete waiver of penalty was declined and the remaining penalty was confined to a reduced amount. The separate nominal penalty under Rule 27 was also set aside.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable, the major penalties were set aside, and the residual penalty was restricted to Rs. 1,50,000/-.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the main credit issue, failed only to the limited extent of the reduced residual penalty, and was disposed of as partly allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concessional CVD paid on imported goods retains its character as additional duty of customs, and CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because the duty was paid at a reduced rate under a customs notification.

---