2018 (4) TMI 1491 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - while clearing the repacked GI wires they discharged Central Excise duty approximately to the tune of ₹ 32 lakhs while the CENVAT credit availed was approximately ₹ 38 lakhs - Held that - The law on this issue is settled by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises 2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , which is, if any amount is paid as Central Excise duty considering the goods as manufactured and if CENVAT credit is sought to be reversed on the same, the duty disallowed is as good as reversal of the same is equal or more to such credit availed and no demand arises. Liability of interest on amount reversed - Held that - the appellant is not required to pay interest on the amount which has been reversed, but only on the amount of ₹ 6,31,590/- which was paid during the proceedings before the first appellate authority. Penalty u/r 15 of CCR - Held that - there is no contravention of the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules as well as Central Excise Rules - the penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
- Availing CENVAT credit on imported GI wires
- Classification of activity as manufacturing
- Liability for reversal of CENVAT credit
- Requirement to pay interest on reversed amount
- Imposition of penalty under CENVAT Credit Rules

Availing CENVAT credit on imported GI wires:
The appellant, a manufacturer, availed CENVAT credit on imported GI wires and cleared them after testing and repacking, paying Central Excise duty as a manufactured product. Revenue authorities disputed this classification as manufacturing, leading to a demand for reversal of CENVAT credit. The appellant argued that their actions aligned with legal precedent and that the duty paid equated to the credit availed, thus no further demand should stand.

Classification of activity as manufacturing:
The Tribunal analyzed the appellant's process of importing GI wires, testing, repacking, and clearing them as manufactured goods. Citing a Bombay High Court judgment, the Tribunal held that paying duty on goods as manufactured and seeking to reverse CENVAT credit on the same amount to the same outcome. As the appellant paid the balance amount during proceedings, the Tribunal concluded that the entire CENVAT credit availed stood reversed.

Liability for reversal of CENVAT credit:
The Tribunal determined that the appellant's actions aligned with legal principles, emphasizing the equivalence of duty paid and credit availed. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the entire CENVAT credit amount was reversed, settling the issue in favor of the appellant.

Requirement to pay interest on reversed amount:
Regarding interest payment, the Tribunal upheld the need for the appellant to pay interest only on the amount paid during the first appellate authority proceedings, not the entire reversed sum. This decision clarified the interest liability, providing a specific amount for the appellant to discharge in accordance with the law.

Imposition of penalty under CENVAT Credit Rules:
Lastly, the Tribunal addressed the penalty imposed under the CENVAT Credit Rules, finding contravention of these rules and Central Excise Rules. Despite this, the Tribunal deemed the imposed penalty of ?50,000 as sufficient to serve the interests of justice, concluding the matter by disposing of the appeal under these terms.