2018 (9) TMI 811 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of Interest and penalties - CENVAT Credit taken wrongly but reversed subsequently - procured inputs from 100% EOU - restrictions as per the formula prescribed under Rule 3 (7) (A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 not followed - Held that - Where wrong Cenvat credit taken inadvertently, if reversed subsequently, and the balance Cenvat credit on the date of reversal is more than the disputed quantum of credit, there cannot be any demand for interest on the assessee and also no imposition of penalty either. During the months of January and February 2009, when the credit balances of the respondent were much lower than the quantum of excess Cenvat credit, taken erroneously, the lower appellate authority should have upheld demands to the extent of short fall between the proportionate excess credits availed and the actual credit balance amount available. To this extent, and for these two periods, the respondent will have to discharge interest liability. Only for this purpose, the matter is remanded to the original authority for reworking of the quantum of interest required to be paid by the respondent - penalties set aside. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of excess Cenvat credit by the respondents.
2. Imposition of interest and penalties by the original authority.
3. Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside interest and penalties.
4. Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules.
5. Applicability of case laws in similar matters.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Availment of excess Cenvat credit by the respondents
The case involved M/s. Ford India Pt. Ltd., manufacturers of passenger cars, who had procured inputs from 100% EOU and availed Cenvat credit on excise duty mentioned in invoices without adhering to the prescribed formula under Rule 3(7)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). SCNs were issued proposing recovery of alleged wrongly availed credit amounts. The original authority reduced the amounts in its adjudication order, which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue challenged these orders before the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Imposition of interest and penalties
The Revenue contended that interest liability should be discharged even if the wrongly availed credit was subsequently reversed. The penalties imposed by the original authority were argued to be justified and should not have been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 3: Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside interest and penalties
The respondents argued that the excess credit was availed inadvertently, without any malafide intention, and confusion due to the prevailing provisions of CCR. They had paid most of the disputed credit amount after the SCN. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside interest and penalties, which the respondents supported.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules
The Tribunal considered the interpretation of the Cenvat Credit Rules in light of the case laws cited by the respondents' advocate, emphasizing inadvertent availing of wrong credit, subsequent reversal, and balance credit availability to determine interest and penalty liability.

Issue 5: Applicability of case laws in similar matters
The Tribunal analyzed case laws such as CCE Vs. Pals Microsystems Ltd., CCE Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd., and Strategic Engineering Vs. CCE, to establish the principle that if the reversed balance credit exceeds the disputed credit amount, no interest or penalty should be imposed. However, for periods where the credit balance was lower than the excess credit, interest liability was upheld, leading to a partial allowance of the department's appeals.

The Tribunal partly allowed the department's appeals by remanding the matter for reworking interest liability for specific periods and rejected the appeals regarding setting aside penalties. The demands for recovery of wrongly availed credit amounts were upheld. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues, considering legal interpretations, case laws, and the specific circumstances of the case.