2019 (9) TMI 1050 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of Interest and penalty - appellant already reversed irregularly availed CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT - The appellant was having sufficient balance in Cenvat credit account during the intervening period - In that circumstances, relying on the decision of BILL FORGE PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE 2010 (2) TMI 403 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , It is held that the appellant is not liable for pay the interest for the intervening period. As it is the bonafied understanding of the appellant that being their head office located in the Bombay, they are entitled to take Cenvat credit on distribution of Cenvat credit by the head office - the penalty on the appellant is not imposable.

Summary

Issues: Restoration of appeal, Cenvat credit denial, Demand of interest, Imposition of penalty

Restoration of Appeal:
The judgment addresses an application for restoration of appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Tribunal recalls the order and restores the appeal to its original number, citing a violation of Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982. The appeal is then taken up for final hearing at the request of both parties.

Cenvat Credit Denial:
The case involves the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant for certain services due to their unit being located in a region where Cenvat Credit Rules do not apply. Although the appellant contested initially, they later reversed the Cenvat credit. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued demanding interest for the intervening period and imposing a penalty. The Tribunal examines whether the demand of interest and penalty imposition can be upheld, considering the appellant's reversal of the credit.

Demand of Interest and Imposition of Penalty:
Upon review of the records, the Tribunal finds that the appellant had a sufficient balance in their Cenvat credit account during the relevant period. Relying on a precedent, the Tribunal rules that the appellant is not liable to pay interest for the intervening period. Additionally, due to the appellant's genuine belief that they were entitled to Cenvat credit based on the location of their head office, the Tribunal decides that the penalty imposed on the appellant is not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal disposes of the appeal on these grounds.

This judgment highlights the procedural aspect of appeal restoration, the intricacies of Cenvat credit denial, and the Tribunal's analysis of interest demand and penalty imposition based on the appellant's circumstances and legal precedents.