9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 988 - AT - Central ExciseReversal of CENVAT Credit - Intention to evade duty - Irregular utilization of CENVAT Credit - Held that - appellant becomes liable to pay interest on the amount of CENVAT credit reversed by them after taking it wrongly in their CENVAT account and such interest should be paid for the period from the date of taking of the credit to the date of its reversal - liability to pay interest for the delayed payment would not arise unless the credit of duty entered in the account books was duly taken to discharge the duty payable. No credit was taken at all by the appellant and hence the question of payment of interest does not arise. In this context, it is also pertinent to note that the credit reversed by Unit-I is undisputedly available to Unit-II. Both the units are owned by the appellant. Hence it cannot be reasonably presumed that Unit-I had any intention to evade payment of duty through irregular availment and utilization of CENVAT credit. The finding of the original authority that what was done by Unit-I during the period of dispute could, at best, be an unintended error without mala fides appears to be reasonable - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Liability to reverse CENVAT credit and pay interest on the credit amount. 2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Interpretation of Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding payment of interest. 4. Jurisdiction of the appellate authority to examine issues beyond those raised in the appeal. Analysis: Issue 1: Liability to reverse CENVAT credit and pay interest on the credit amount The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Electric Conductors, had two manufacturing units in Bangalore. During a dispute period, Unit-I took CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services utilized by both units. An audit revealed that Unit-I had wrongly taken the credit for both units, leading to a demand for interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the irregularly availed credit, demanded interest, and imposed a penalty. The appellant contested the imposition of interest and penalty, arguing that Unit-I's actions were unintentional without mala fides, and the Revenue had not challenged this finding. The Tribunal held that as no credit was actually taken by the appellant, the question of paying interest did not arise, especially since the credit reversed by Unit-I was available to Unit-II, both owned by the appellant. Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 The Commissioner (Appeals) imposed a penalty equal to the irregularly availed CENVAT credit but reduced it by 25% if paid within thirty days. The appellant contended that the penalty was beyond the scope of the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal agreed that the lower appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction by examining extraneous issues not raised in the Revenue's appeal, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal. Issue 3: Interpretation of Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding payment of interest The appellant argued that the proposed levy of interest on the reversed CENVAT credit was illegal, citing the interpretation of Rule 14 by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and decisions of the Tribunal. The Revenue referenced a Supreme Court decision stating that interest should be paid on wrongly taken or utilized credit. However, the Tribunal distinguished the present case from the cited cases, emphasizing that no credit was actually taken by the appellant, thus negating the liability to pay interest. Issue 4: Jurisdiction of the appellate authority to examine issues beyond those raised in the appeal The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority had examined issues beyond the scope of the Revenue's appeal, indicating an overreach in its decision-making. This overstepping of jurisdiction led to the setting aside of the impugned order and the allowance of the appellant's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and emphasizing that no credit was taken, thereby dismissing the liability to pay interest. The overreach of the lower appellate authority in examining extraneous issues beyond the scope of the appeal led to the successful appeal of the appellant.
|
