2011 (11) TMI 338 - AT - Central Excise

Non-availability of modvat credit in respect of supporting structural availed first installment in 05-06 & second installment in April 2007 - on objection being raised by the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities reversed the Ist installment but IInd installment was not reversed Held that - Since the period in the present case, is prior to declaration of law by the larger bench in 2010, when other decisions in favour of the assessee, the appellant cannot be held guilty for contravention so as to invoke penalty provisions against them. Duty is confirmed & penalty is set aside Partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Availing of cenvat credit on specific items as capital goods, reversal of credit instalments, applicability of penalty provisions.

Analysis:

1. Availing of Cenvat Credit on Specific Items as Capital Goods:
The appellants availed cenvat credit on various items like M.S. joist, channel, angle, beam, bar, etc., considering them as supporting in the capital goods. The learned Advocate for the appellant explained that they had taken 50% of the credit as the first instalment during 2005-06, and the remaining 50% in April 2007. The issue arose when the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities objected to the credit availed, leading to the reversal of the first instalment. However, the second instalment was not reversed, prompting the initiation of proceedings for the recovery of wrongly availed cenvat credit.

2. Reversal of Credit Instalments and Applicability of Penalty Provisions:
The Advocate admitted that the second instalment should have been reversed immediately but attributed the delay to a mistake on their part. It was argued that the issue was not free from doubt, especially considering that a larger bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. in 2010 clarified that modvat credit is not available for supporting structural items. Since the period in question predated this decision and other previous decisions favored the assessee, it was contended that the appellant should not be penalized for contravention. The Tribunal agreed that given the circumstances and the evolving legal landscape, it was not justifiable to impose a penalty on the appellant. Consequently, the penalty provisions were set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely compliance with tax regulations, the impact of evolving legal interpretations on past actions, and the need for a nuanced approach in applying penalty provisions based on the specific circumstances of each case.