2008 (2) TMI 110 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of the ineligible credit, was done by the appellant themselves after intimating Range Officers - held that assessee is not liable to pay interest as the credit was taken as an entry in the modvat record and was infact not utilized - Commissioner (A), while confirming that the interest demand is sustainable has not given any reasoning, hence same is set aside - Since the appellant has not filed any appeal against imposition of penalty, the penalty imposed by the Comm. (A) is correct

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the demand of interest on excess Cenvat credit availed is sustainable?
2. Whether the interest demand is maintainable as per provisions of law?
3. Whether the appellant is liable to pay interest for the period during which the credit was taken?
4. Whether the interest demand confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is sustainable?
5. Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant is correct and requires no interference?

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant availing Cenvat credit not eligible to them, which was later reversed and informed to the authorities. The adjudicating authority dropped the demand of interest but imposed a penalty. The Revenue appealed, and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the interest demand citing relevant case law. The appellant argued no interest should be paid as the credit was not utilized, referring to a High Court judgment. The Tribunal noted the reversal of credit and the balance in statutory records, following the High Court's decision that interest is not payable if credit was not utilized.

2. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) maintained the interest demand, but without providing reasoning for its sustainability. The Tribunal emphasized that any order enhancing an assessee's liability must be reasoned. As the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to provide justification for the interest demand, the Tribunal held it unsustainable. However, since the appellant did not challenge the penalty imposition, the Tribunal upheld the penalty without interference.

3. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of reasoning in confirming liabilities on an assessee. As the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide justification for the interest demand, the Tribunal struck down that portion of the order. The Tribunal allowed the appeal to set aside the interest amount, as per the reasoning based on the High Court's decision and the lack of reasoning in the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal precedents cited, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal regarding the demand of interest and penalty on the appellant.