2010 (9) TMI 283 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty - CENVAT Credit - excess credit availed by the assessee - denial of credit availed by the appellants - Confirmation of demand of interest on 50% of the credit availed on steel balls - imposition and confirmation of penalty - Held that - supplier of the raw material has subsequently debited the amounts in question and the appellant has taken credit of the entire duty paid by the supplier - allowed - As regards denial of 50% of credit availed on the steel balls and confirmation of demand and interest, the appellants have submitted that as per the decisions of the Tribunal as also various high sea sales, steel balls are used as grinding of solid ingredients, have been held to be as input rather than as capital goods - availing 100% credit of duty paid on the said grinding balls, by treating the same as input, was in accordance with the law - penalty imposed upon them will get reduced to denial of the credit, which is not being disputed by the appellant - appeal is disposed off

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of credit availed on excise invoices
2. Confirmation of demand of interest on steel balls credit
3. Imposition and confirmation of penalty

Issue 1: Denial of credit on excise invoices
The appellants were engaged in manufacturing paints and varnishes on a job work basis, availing CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs from a supplier. The dispute centered around excess credit availed by the assessee, leading to the denial of credit on specific excise invoices by the lower authorities. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial, stating that excess credit was availed and needed to be recovered since the duty amount credited was not paid by the supplier. However, the assessee contended that the duty was paid by the supplier, albeit on the lower side initially, and later corrected by debiting the correct amounts. The Tribunal, after reviewing documents and a certificate from the Excise Superintendent, found that the supplier rectified the duty payment discrepancies, allowing the appellants to avail credit of the entire duty paid. Consequently, the denial of credit amounting to Rs.5,514/- was deemed unjustified and allowed.

Issue 2: Confirmation of demand of interest on steel balls credit
Regarding the denial of 50% credit availed on steel balls and the demand for interest, the appellants argued that steel balls were used as inputs and not capital goods, entitling them to 100% credit upon receipt. The Tribunal referenced precedents, such as the High Court of Rajasthan and previous Tribunal orders, establishing that grinding balls, including steel balls, were considered inputs eligible for credit. The Tribunal concurred with the appellants, recognizing the steel balls as inputs and justifying the 100% credit availed on them.

Issue 3: Imposition and confirmation of penalty
The appellants also contested the penalty of Rs.14,999/- imposed for excess credit availed on other invoices. However, since the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants on the credit denial issues, the penalty was reduced to the extent of credit denial, which was not disputed by the appellants. The Assistant Commissioner was tasked with recalculating the penalty in line with the revised credit denial. Consequently, the penalty imposed was adjusted based on the Tribunal's findings on the credit availed and denied, concluding the appeal in favor of the appellants.