9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 319 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre deposit of interest - Wrong availment of CENVAT Credit - Held that - Interest is compensatory in character, and is imposed on an assessee, who has withheld payment of any tax, as and when it is due and payable. The levy of interest is on the actual amount which is withheld and the extent of delay in paying tax on the due date. If there is no liability to pay tax, there is no liability to pay interest. Section 11AB of the Act is attracted only on delayed payment of duty i.e., where only duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, the person liable to pay duty, shall in addition to the duty is liable to pay interest. Section do not stipulate interest is payable from the date of book entry, showing entitlement of Cenvat credit. Interest cannot be claimed from the date of wrong availment of CENVAT credit and that the interest would be payable from the date CENVAT credit is taken or utilized wrongly - Following decision of CCE, Bangalore Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Stay granted.
Issues Involved:
Waiver of predeposit of interest for the period March 2008 to July 2008. Analysis: Issue 1: Applicant's Error in CENVAT Credit The applicant, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle parts, mistakenly showed a higher credit amount in March 2008. The error was detected in July 2009, and the credit was reversed. The Commissioner imposed a demand of interest for the delay in reversal. Issue 2: Legal Contention on Interest Payment The applicant argued that since the credit was not utilized, the interest demand was unjustified. Citing the Karnataka High Court case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd., the applicant contended that non-utilization of credit negates the interest liability. Issue 3: Revenue's Position on Interest Liability The Revenue, represented by the learned AR, referenced the Supreme Court case of Union of India Vs. Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd. and the High Court case of CCE, Chennai Vs. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. The argument was that interest is payable upon availing credit, irrespective of its utilization status. Issue 4: Judicial Precedents and Interpretation The judgment analyzed the Karnataka High Court decision in Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that credit utilization is crucial for interest liability. The Court clarified that interest is compensatory and applicable when tax payment is delayed, not from the mere availing of credit. Issue 5: Application of Precedents to the Present Case In light of the legal precedents, the judgment concluded that the applicant's case aligned with the principles established in Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. The Court found a prima facie case for waiving the interest predeposit, citing the direct relevance of the Karnataka High Court ruling. Conclusion: The judgment granted the applicant's request for waiver of predeposit of interest, staying its recovery during the appeal process. By aligning with the legal interpretation from the Karnataka High Court case, the decision provided relief to the applicant based on established principles regarding credit utilization and interest liability. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal arguments, precedents, and the final decision regarding the waiver of predeposit of interest in the specified case.
|
