2020 (2) TMI 38 - AT - Service Tax

Principles of natural justice - recovery invoking Rule 14 and not Rule 6(3A) clause (e) - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the appellant had wrongly availed CENVAT Credit and has been pointed out for reversing the same. The entire amount has been reversed by the appellant and the same has been confirmed and appropriated in the demand by the original authority. He also imposed penalty which has been set aside by the first appellate authority. The Department has not contested waiver of the penalty. The interest is evidently and explicitly payable under Rule 6(3A) clause (e) read with Rule 14 of CCR 2004. The interest has indeed been demanded under Rule 14 of CCR 2004. Merely because they have also not mentioned Rule 6(3A) in the Show Cause Notice, it does not vitiate the entire demand of interest. The first appellate authority has given the appellant adequate opportunity to explain as to why they are not liable to be paid interest - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of interest liability under Rule 14 of CCR 2004.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad, confirming the demand of interest liability under Rule 14 of CCR 2004. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electric panel boards and providing services, had availed CENVAT Credit under CCR 2004. A show cause notice was issued seeking to deny CENVAT Credit and recover the amount under Rule 14, along with interest and penalty. The original authority confirmed the demands, and on appeal, the first appellate authority set aside the penalty but upheld the demand and interest. The matter was remanded to the original authority for further adjudication.

2. The appellant contested the demand of interest, arguing that it was made under Rule 14 instead of Rule 6(3A)(e). The contention was that recovery of interest should have been under Rule 6(3A)(e) as per Explanation-III of Rule 6. The Department argued that the mention of Rule 6(3A)(e) was not necessary, as recovery under Rule 14 was appropriate. Citing case laws, the Department asserted that the demand of interest was valid even without specific mention of Rule 6(3A)(e) in the show cause notice.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the contentions and upheld the demand of interest under Rule 14. It noted that the appellant had reversed the CENVAT Credit, and the interest was rightly demanded under Rule 14. The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority had provided the appellant with an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the appeal was deemed without merit and rejected, upholding the impugned order confirming the interest liability under Rule 14 of CCR 2004.

4. The Tribunal's detailed analysis included references to legal provisions, case laws, and specific arguments raised by both parties. The judgment clarified the basis for confirming the interest liability under Rule 14, emphasizing the compliance requirements and the principles of natural justice followed in the adjudication process. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts, legal provisions, and arguments presented during the proceedings.

5. Overall, the judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised regarding the confirmation of interest liability under Rule 14 of CCR 2004. It highlighted the legal principles, case laws, and procedural aspects relevant to the dispute, ultimately concluding that the demand of interest was valid and rejecting the appellant's appeal. The judgment demonstrated a meticulous consideration of the facts and legal framework involved in the case, ensuring a reasoned and well-founded decision.