2013 (11) TMI 1030 - HC - Central Excise

Interest liability u/s 82 and 83 of the Finance Act, 2005 Held that - The appellant has as such admitted the reversal of cenvat credit and infact had reversed the cenvat credit voluntarily - From the order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has also tried to strike the balance and has observed that the interest liability under sections 82 and 83 of the Finance Act, 2005 would be from that day there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in appeal as well as in rectification application - No substantial question of law arises in the appeal Decided against Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2012 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and common order dated 07.02.2013 in Rectification Application. Proposed substantial questions of law include rejection of miscellaneous application, consideration of provisions of limitation, observation on reversal of credit, and liability to pay interest.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing, cleared goods at Nil rate of duty under a specific notification but failed to maintain separate inventory for duty paid inputs. Consequently, a show-cause notice was issued for duty demand, interest, and penalty. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the appeals, which were challenged by the Revenue before CESTAT. The CESTAT directed the appellant to reverse a specific amount and held them liable for interest from a retrospective date due to amendments in Finance Act, 2005.

The appellant then filed a rectification application, which was dismissed by CESTAT. The High Court, considering the interest liability issue, noted the appellant's voluntary reversal of credit and their failure to contest the liability to reverse the credit. The Court observed that the appellant's admission of reversal implied interest liability under the Finance Act, 2005. The Court declined to interfere with the CESTAT's order, stating no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeal.

In summary, the High Court upheld the CESTAT's decision on interest liability, emphasizing the appellant's voluntary reversal of credit and lack of contestation regarding the liability. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the CESTAT's order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.