9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 868 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of Interest and penalty - CENVAT Credit - common input services used for trading and manufacturing activities of the company - Rule 6(3(A)) of CCR, 2004 - HELD THAT - The appellant has reversed the CENVAT credit wrongly availed much before the issuance of the show-cause notice and the same has also been appropriated in the original order. Further, the appellant has also produced on record, the CENVAT credit account which shows the credit of around ₹ 1 crore during the disputed period which clearly shows that the appellant has only availed the credit and has not utilized the same and therefore in view of the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, BANGALORE VERSUS M/S BILL FORGE PVT LTD, BANGALORE 2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , they are not liable to pay the interest. For the purpose of verification of the excess credit reversed by the appellant, the original authority is directed to verify from the records regarding the allegation of the appellant regarding the excess reversal of CENVAT credit - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
- Challenge to imposition of penalty under Section 11AC for wrongful availment of CENVAT credit on common input services used in trading activities. - Appellant's contention of timely reversal of CENVAT credit and absence of liability for interest and penalty. - Claim for refund of excess CENVAT credit reversed inadvertently. - Interpretation of the applicability of interest on inadmissible credit taken but not utilized. - Verification and direction for refund of excess CENVAT credit reversed by the appellant. Analysis: 1. Challenge to Penalty Imposition: The appeal contested the penalty imposed under Section 11AC for the wrongful availment of CENVAT credit on common input services used in trading activities. The Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the penalty, concluding that the appellant had already reversed the entire amount of CENVAT credit along with interest before the issuance of the demand notice, thereby absolving them from penalty liability. 2. Appellant's Contention and Absence of Liability for Interest and Penalty: The appellant argued that they had timely reversed the CENVAT credit amounts as per the provisions of the CCR, and even reversed excess credit due to inadvertent error. They maintained that since the credit was reversed before the show-cause notice, interest and penalty were not payable. The consultant highlighted that the appellant had not utilized the availed credit, citing precedents where interest was deemed inapplicable on unutilized credit. The appellant also sought a refund for the excess CENVAT credit reversed inadvertently, emphasizing that the authorities had not addressed this issue. 3. Interpretation of Interest Applicability: The judgment referenced the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a specific case, emphasizing that interest is not payable on inadmissible credit if not utilized. It was noted that the appellant had maintained a substantial CENVAT credit balance throughout the disputed period, indicating non-utilization of the credit and, therefore, no liability for interest. 4. Verification and Refund of Excess CENVAT Credit: The Tribunal directed the original authority to verify the appellant's claim of excess CENVAT credit reversal and subsequent entitlement to a refund. The judgment emphasized the need for proper verification and legal recourse for the appellant to claim the refund of the excess credit reversed inadvertently, aligning with the principles established in relevant case law. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal based on the findings that the appellant had reversed the CENVAT credit before the issuance of the show-cause notice, was not liable for interest, and directed verification for the refund of excess credit reversed inadvertently. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues raised, citing legal precedents and ensuring a fair consideration of the appellant's contentions.
|
