2011 (7) TMI 461 - AT - Central Excise

MODVAT Credit in respect of TMT Bars and SS Wire Mesh and LDO used for construction and as fuel. - MODVAT Credit was availed by the respondent by treating the said goods as eligible inputs for the purpose of MODVAT Credit - held that - credit availed prior to the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE Raipur (2010 -TMI - 76147 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)) - it can be said that availment of credit by the respondent was in accordance with the law and it cannot be said that the same was wrongly availed so as to attract the provisions of Rule 15 - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Availment of MODVAT Credit for TMT Bars and SS Wire Mesh and LDO used for construction and as fuel.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad involved a dispute regarding the availment of MODVAT Credit for TMT Bars, SS Wire Mesh, and LDO used for construction and as fuel. The Revenue challenged the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) which set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent while confirming the demand against them.

During the proceedings, it was argued by the Advocate for the respondent that the availment of credit was based on various Tribunal decisions allowing such credit during the relevant period. However, a Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE Raipur held the goods used for construction as ineligible inputs. Despite this, the respondent reversed the credit along with interest even before the declaration of law by the Larger Bench. The Commissioner(Appeals) agreed that the issue was a matter of interpretation of law and did not warrant the imposition of a penalty, considering that the credit was availed in accordance with the precedent decisions of the Tribunal at that time.

The Tribunal, represented by Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, concurred with the Advocate's argument, noting that during the relevant period, decisions favored the assessee regarding the availment of credit. Therefore, it was deemed that the respondent had rightly availed the credit in accordance with the law prevailing at that time, and there was no basis to suggest that it was wrongly availed to trigger penalty provisions under Rule 15. The respondent's decision to reverse the credit further demonstrated their intention to avoid legal disputes with the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner(Appeals)'s decision that no penalty was applicable in this case due to the respondent's correct availment of credit based on the prevailing legal interpretations at the time.