2018 (8) TMI 1497 - AT - Central Excise

Liability of Interest and penalty - On being pointed out about the mistake the credit having been reversed before utilization - Held that - The appellant has reversed a substantial portion of the irregularly availed credit to the tune of 1, 70, 290/- along with interest before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. A small differential amount of 6, 296/- was also reversed by them after passing of the order in original - It is also brought out that the appellants had sufficient credit balance and the wrongly availed credit was reversed before utilization. Interest and penalty set aside without disturbing the confirmation of demand or interest already paid - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Recovery of wrongly availed credit, demand of interest, penalties imposed, reversal of credit, applicability of legal precedents, setting aside penalty and interest.

Analysis:

1. Recovery of Wrongly Availed Credit: The appellants were issued a Show Cause Notice to recover wrongly availed credit amounting to ? 9,52,385 for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. The original authority dropped the demand for certain services but confirmed an amount of ? 1,76,586 along with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, interest, and penalties. The appellants appealed to the Tribunal challenging this decision.

2. Reversal of Credit and Interest: The appellant had reversed a significant portion of the irregularly availed credit, amounting to ? 1,70,290 along with interest, before the Show Cause Notice was issued. A minor differential amount of ? 6,296 was reversed after the original order. The appellants argued that since the credit was reversed before utilization, there should be no interest liability or penalties. They cited legal precedents to support their argument.

3. Applicability of Legal Precedents: The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and reviewed the records. It was noted that the appellants had reversed the wrongly availed credit before utilization and had sufficient credit balance. The Tribunal found that the penalty imposed was unwarranted based on the precedent set in the case of Strategic Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also agreed with the appellant that they were not liable to pay interest on the differential amount of ? 6,296 as per the same legal precedent.

4. Decision and Modification of Order: After thorough consideration, the Tribunal modified the impugned order by setting aside the penalty and the demand of interest for the amount of ? 6,296 only. The confirmation of the demand and interest already paid was not disturbed. The appeal was allowed in the mentioned terms, with any consequential reliefs to follow.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the penalty and interest for the specific amount while upholding the confirmation of the demand and interest already paid. The decision was based on the timely reversal of the wrongly availed credit and the absence of interest liability or penalties in such circumstances as supported by relevant legal precedents.