2015 (1) TMI 1036 - AT - Central Excise

Interest and penalty for taking the Cenvat credit wrongly - credit was availed by the appellant in terms of permission granted by their jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner - Revenue changed its opinion and withdrew the permission on 30-4-2012 and the appellant was directed by the Superintendent to reverse the credit entry on 23-5-2012 which was actually reversed on 8-6-2012 - Held that - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd 2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - where the credit availed remained as paper entry only and was not utilized at all, no interest liability would arise against the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Transfer of Central Excise credit between factories, reversal of credit entry, liability for interest on unutilized credit amount.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing chewing tobacco, who sought to transfer accumulated Central Excise credit from one factory to another. Initially granted permission, the appellant later faced withdrawal of the same by the Asstt. Commissioner, leading to directions for credit reversal. The appellant complied, reversing the credit entry within the specified period.

Subsequently, the Superintendent demanded interest for the period the credit remained unutilized, initiating proceedings through a show cause notice. The Superintendent, however, vacated the notice, citing non-utilization of credit. The Revenue appealed this decision, contending that interest was due based on a Supreme Court ruling, contrasting the Karnataka High Court decision relied upon by the Superintendent.

Upon review, the Commissioner (Appeals) favored the Supreme Court decision, upholding the interest liability. The appellant challenged this decision, leading to the present appeal and stay petition. The Member (J) noted the undisputed facts, emphasizing that the credit remained unutilized during the specified period. Drawing parallels to the Karnataka High Court decisions, the Member highlighted the distinction made by the High Court in cases where credit remained as a paper entry without utilization.

Acknowledging the precedence of Supreme Court decisions, the Member emphasized the specific circumstances of the case, where the credit was not utilized. Citing consistent Tribunal adherence to the Karnataka High Court rulings, the Member concluded that no interest liability could be imposed on the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, restoring the original adjudicating authority's decision.

In the final verdict, the appeal was allowed, and both the stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering specific factual contexts in determining interest liabilities on unutilized Central Excise credit amounts, emphasizing the relevance of previous judicial interpretations in similar cases.