2017 (12) TMI 1182 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of interest - interest paid on wrongly availed CENVAT credit - appellant have claimed the refund of interest pertaining to the period from 17-3-2012 to 30-8-2013 on the ground that during such period interest was chargeable only when the assessee takes the credit and utilize it - Held that - When the Rule 14 was amended the effect of amended rule has to be given for the period on or after 17-3-2012 according to the amended provision for the period after 17-3-2012 interest is chargeable only when the assessee not only taking credit but also utilized the same - In the facts of the present case, appellant admittedly though taking credit but the same was not utilized till 30-8-2013, therefore for the period from 17-3-2012 onwards as per the amended provision, interest is not chargeable on unutilized cenvat credit - interest paid for the period 17-3-2012 till reversal i.e. 30-8-2013 is refundable to the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 14 regarding the chargeability of interest on Cenvat credit.
2. Eligibility for refund of interest paid on ineligible Cenvat credit.
3. Applicability of amended Rule 14 to the period after its implementation.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant availing Cenvat credit during a specific period. The audit party pointed out the issue, leading to the reversal of the credit and payment of interest by the appellant. The amendment to Rule 14 on 17-3-2012 changed the provision regarding the chargeability of interest on wrongly taken credit. The appellant filed a refund claim for interest paid on ineligible credit from 17-3-2012 to the date of reversal. The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the claim, citing the applicability of the unamended provision during the period when the credit was taken, making interest chargeable even if the credit was not utilized.

2. The appellant argued that post-amendment, interest was chargeable only when credit was both taken and utilized. They contended that since the credit remained unutilized after the amendment, interest should not be charged. The Revenue, however, supported the application of the unamended provision at the time of taking credit, making interest rightly charged. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and records, noting that interest was chargeable on wrongly taken credit even if unutilized before the amendment. However, post-amendment, interest was only chargeable when credit was both taken and utilized. As the appellant had not utilized the credit until the reversal date, the Tribunal held that interest paid from 17-3-2012 to the reversal date was refundable.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the amended rule's effect should apply from the date of its implementation onwards. Therefore, for the period after 17-3-2012, interest was not chargeable on unutilized Cenvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and ruling in favor of the appellant for the refund of interest paid during the specified period.