9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1482 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of Interest and penalty - confirmation of recovery of CENVAT Credit - Invocation of Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which requires that CENVAT credit should have been taken and utilised for invoking the liability provisions under section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - Reference to section 11A is limited to the extent that CENVAT credit was recoverable whereas in the present instance CENVAT credit has been reversed and the interest liability would arise only on invoking section 11AA. Considering the legal position, interest liability does not arise. Imposition of penalty - Held that - Imposition of penalty is independent to rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and rule 15 for invoking the liability to penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, the ingredients specifically mentioned therein must exist - From a perusal of the show cause notice, it is seen that there is no allegation to that effect - penalty not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Dispute regarding penalty imposition due to recovery of CENVAT credit availed by a company, reduction of recovery amount by Commissioner, liability to interest, penalty imposition, interpretation of rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, applicability of section 11A(5) of Central Excise Act, 1944, reliance on case laws for penalty imposition, and final decision on interest liability and penalty imposition.
Analysis: 1. The dispute involved the recovery of CENVAT credit of ?24,73,498 availed by a company between March 2013 and March 2014. The original authority confirmed the demand as per the show cause notice, but the Commissioner reduced the recovery amount while upholding the interest liability and penalty to the extent of recovery. 2. The appellant's counsel argued that interest liability arises only upon the utilization of wrongly availed CENVAT credit post an amendment in rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellant claimed that they rectified the excess availment immediately upon audit observation and had been compliant with return filings. The counsel contended that the tax authorities should scrutinize wrongful availments and the show cause notice lacked specific allegations for penalty imposition. 3. The Authorized Representative argued that duty and interest discharge under section 11A(5) of the Central Excise Act should prevail over rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules. He relied on a Tribunal decision to emphasize that mere return filings do not absolve from penalty if intention to suppress information is evident. The Representative also cited a High Court decision on interest liability application. 4. The Tribunal noted that interest liability is governed by rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, and as the credit was reversed, interest liability under section 11AA does not arise. The decisions cited by the Authorized Representative pertained to a period before the rule amendment and did not directly apply to the present case. 5. Regarding penalty imposition, the Tribunal emphasized that specific elements mentioned in rule 15 for invoking penalty under section 11AC must exist. The show cause notice lacked such allegations, and lower authorities did not substantively establish the presence of these elements, rendering the penalty imposition unsustainable. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order due to the absence of interest liability and unsustainable penalty imposition based on the lack of requisite elements as per the law. This detailed analysis highlights the legal arguments, interpretations of relevant laws and rules, reliance on case laws, and the Tribunal's final decision on interest liability and penalty imposition in the context of the disputed recovery of CENVAT credit.
|
