2018 (5) TMI 291 - AT - Central Excise

Re-credit of the amount paid through cenvat account - case of the department is that the appellant should have taken re-credit with reference to the debit made through cash in the month of August 2010 against the wrong availment of credit - Held that - The only lapse on the part of the appellant is that instead of giving reference of the debit entries in the cenvat account, they have given reference to the TR6 challan through which payment was made in cash towards duty liability in October 2010. This is only a procedural lapse and there is no excess availments of credit, therefore the appellant have re-credited the amount whatever was eligible to them - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of re-credit through cenvat account for clearances made in October 2010.
- Reference of cash payment instead of duty paid through cenvat.
- Correctness of re-credit against cash payment.
- Interpretation of Tribunal's order regarding re-credit.
- Department's contention on the utilization of wrongly availed credit.
- Double payment of duty on the same clearances.
- Procedural lapse in providing reference of debit entries in the cenvat account.

Analysis:
1. The appellant availed re-credit of the amount paid through the cenvat account for clearances in October 2010. However, they provided a reference to a challan for cash payment instead of the duty paid through cenvat. The department argued that re-credit should have been taken with reference to the debits made against the wrongly availed credit, leading to the denial of re-credit.

2. The appellant's counsel contended that the error was in referencing a cash deposit challan from May and June 2014, but since duty was debited through cenvat in October 2010 and then paid through cash, the debit from October 2010 should be restored for re-credit. Referring to a Tribunal order, the counsel argued that re-credit was permitted under similar circumstances, as the duty debited through cenvat was paid in cash with interest in 2014, allowing for re-credit.

3. The Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the denial of re-credit based on the department's stance.

4. The judgment carefully considered both arguments and found that the appellant re-credited the amount equal to the cenvat credit utilized in October 2010 based on a Tribunal order. It was clarified that the appellant was directed to pay the cenvat utilized amount in cash due to a default in monthly duty payment, resulting in double payment of duty on the same clearances. The Tribunal's decision to allow re-credit for the cenvat credit utilized in May & June 2014 was upheld. The only identified lapse was the procedural error in referencing the cash payment instead of the debit entries in the cenvat account, which did not result in excess credit availment. Consequently, the impugned order denying credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.