2019 (8) TMI 585 - AT - Central Excise

Imposition of penalty - wrong availment of credit, immediately reversed - bonafide belief - HELD THAT - Since the appellant has reversed the CENVAT credit along with interest and there was no mala fide intention in taking the CENVAT credit, in such circumstances, imposition of penalty is not warranted under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:

1. Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (A) regarding imposition of equal penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Applicability of penalty in case of wrongful availment of CENVAT credit.
3. Consideration of mala fide intention in imposing penalty.

Issue 1: Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (A) regarding imposition of equal penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004

The appeal was directed against the order of the Commissioner (A) rejecting the appellant's appeal concerning the imposition of equal penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses, had wrongly availed CENVAT credit for civil construction services. A show-cause notice was issued demanding service tax, which was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant then appealed before the Commissioner (A) solely on the issue of the equal penalty imposed. The appellant argued that the penalty was unsustainable as they had immediately reversed the wrongly availed credit and paid the interest. They claimed their belief was bona fide and there was no fraud or willful misstatement. The Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal, leading to the present appeal.

Issue 2: Applicability of penalty in case of wrongful availment of CENVAT credit

The appellant contended that the imposition of the penalty was not justified as they had promptly rectified the error upon being notified by the department. They argued that they had reversed the credit, paid the interest, and had no mala fide intention in availing the credit. The appellant emphasized their compliance and lack of fraudulent intent in taking the CENVAT credit. The learned counsel for the appellant highlighted the absence of fraud, collusion, or willful suppression of facts in the case of availing the credit. The appellant's defense centered on the immediate corrective actions taken upon the detection of the error, underscoring their good faith in the matter.

Issue 3: Consideration of mala fide intention in imposing penalty

Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found that since the appellant had promptly reversed the CENVAT credit along with interest and there was no evidence of mala fide intention in availing the credit, the imposition of the penalty was unwarranted under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the penalty by allowing the appeal of the appellant. This decision was based on the absence of fraudulent intent and the appellant's immediate corrective actions upon being made aware of the error, highlighting the importance of good faith and compliance in such matters.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision regarding the imposition of the penalty in the case of wrongful availment of CENVAT credit.