2017 (7) TMI 391 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - the respondent availed excess cenvat credit and paid less duty - Revenue is of the view that the reversal of cenvat credit is not the payment of duty, therefore, they are not entitled for refund/re-credit of the same - Held that - during the period January 2007 to May 2007, the respondent has availed excess cenvat credit and paid less duty. If they would have taken proper CENVAT credit during the said period, they were required to pay more duty through PLA and they are entitled for more refund/re-credit. But on their realization that they have taken excess credit which they paid through PLA, in that circumstances, on the principle of balance of equity, the respondent were entitled for refund of CENVAT credit paid through PLA - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement for refund of cenvat credit paid/reversed through PLA.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002.
3. Application of Section 11B of the Act.
4. Principle of balance of equity in availing excess cenvat credit.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case revolves around the entitlement for refund of cenvat credit paid/reversed through PLA. The appellant, the Revenue, contested that the reversal of cenvat credit does not constitute the payment of duty, hence the respondent is not entitled to a refund. However, the respondent argued that even if the excess cenvat credit was reversed/paid through PLA, they are still eligible for a refund under Section 11B of the Act. The Tribunal examined the facts and arguments presented by both parties.

2. The interpretation of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 played a crucial role in determining the eligibility for the refund. The appellant contended that as per this notification, the assessee is not entitled to a refund/re-credit of duty paid through PLA due to the reversal of excess cenvat credit. On the contrary, the respondent relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Berger Paints India Ltd. to support their claim for a refund of the excess cenvat credit paid through PLA.

3. The application of Section 11B of the Act was also a significant aspect considered by the Tribunal. The respondent argued that they are entitled to a refund under this section despite the reversal of excess cenvat credit. The Tribunal carefully analyzed the provisions of Section 11B along with the specific circumstances of the case to determine the applicability of the said section in granting the refund.

4. Lastly, the principle of balance of equity in availing excess cenvat credit was deliberated upon by the Tribunal. It was noted that during the period in question, the respondent had availed excess cenvat credit and paid less duty. Considering the principle of equity, the Tribunal found that the respondent, upon realizing the excess credit taken and subsequently paid through PLA, was entitled to a refund. The Tribunal relied on its previous decision in the case of M/s Berger Paints India Ltd. to support this conclusion.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the principle of equity and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and notifications, ultimately affirming the respondent's entitlement to a refund of the cenvat credit paid/reversed through PLA.