2014 (12) TMI 200 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Cenvat credit - whether the appellant is liable to pay interest on reversal of excess credit availed by them before utilisation - Held that - issue is covered by decision of Hon ble High Court of Madras in case of Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. 2014 (11) TMI 89 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and this Tribunal has followed the aforesaid decision in the case of Vodafone Essar South Ltd. (2014 (11) TMI 657 - CESTAT BANGALORE), at this stage, I consider that the appellant has made out a case in their favour and accordingly, requirement of pre-deposit of the adjudged dues is waived and stay against recovery is granted during pendency of the appeals - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Cenvat credit denial of over Rs. 40 lakhs, liability for interest on reversal of excess credit before utilization, and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:

1. Cenvat Credit Denial:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, availed Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The department discovered irregular credit availed by the appellants, which was then reversed. The primary issue was whether the appellants are liable to pay interest on the reversed excess credit and face penalties. The department contended that interest is recoverable under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, even if wrongly taken credit is not utilized. The department argued that had the irregular credit not been detected, revenue loss to the exchequer would have been significant.

2. Interest Liability and Penalty:
The appellants argued that since the credit was reversed before utilization, they are not liable to pay interest. They relied on a Tribunal decision that supported their stance. The Tribunal had previously held that interest is not payable when credit is reversed before utilization. However, the department cited a Supreme Court decision to support their position that interest and penalties are applicable at the stage of credit taken, even if not utilized. The High Court of Madras decision was crucial in determining whether interest and penalties were justified in this case.

3. Pre-Deposit Waiver and Stay Against Recovery:
Considering the precedents and legal interpretations, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's case and waived the requirement of pre-deposit of adjudged dues. A stay against recovery was granted during the pendency of the appeals. The Tribunal emphasized the need for factual verification regarding the amount of credit taken on capital goods during the relevant period, requiring remand for further consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal without costs, confirming the previous order. The decision was influenced by the interpretation of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing the importance of the timing of credit reversal and utilization in determining liability for interest and penalties. The case highlighted the significance of legal precedents and amendments in clarifying doubts regarding the application of relevant rules and regulations in excise matters.