2012 (12) TMI 219 - AT - Central Excise

Disallowance of credit - discharge of additional customs duty from DEPB account - Notification No. 96/04-Cus. was issued on 17-9-2004 Held that - In absence of specific provision of law, there cannot be any artificial construction of law, that can be made to make law unworkable - when the bona fide of the appellant is not doubted and law was under confusion stage authority cannot proceed against the appellant to disallow Cenvat credit - appellant was also in dark to ascertain the proper position of law, in view of travel of the litigations from 2002 to 2010 from Tribunal to High Court. Therefore, noticing no mala fide, the appellant also succeeds on limitation - appeal is allowed partly

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding levy of interest and additional customs duty payment from DEPB account.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved two main disputes. The first was regarding the levy of interest amounting to Rs. 70,461, in contrast to the duty demand of Rs. 1,20,902. The second dispute revolved around whether an additional customs duty of Rs. 1,30,024 should be paid from the DEPB account. The appellant had already deposited Rs. 30,000 against the interest demand and agreed to pay the remaining amount. Regarding the second dispute, the appellant argued that there was no legal prohibition against discharging the additional customs duty liability from the DEPB account rather than in cash. The DEPB account had been debited for the said amount, and the appellant cited previous Tribunal decisions supporting their stance. However, a later Larger Bench decision ruled against the appellant, leading to the current dispute. The appellant's position found support in a High Court decision and a Customs Act notification, allowing for the discharge of additional duty from the DEPB account and the corresponding Cenvat credit.

2. On the contrary, the Revenue contended that there was no favorable provision for the appellant at the time of discharging the additional customs duty liability. They argued that the EXIM Policy did not permit availing Cenvat credit or drawback concerning additional customs duty paid from the DEPB account.

3. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal addressed the issues. Regarding the interest demand, since the appellant agreed to pay the remaining amount, the Tribunal confirmed the interest demand of Rs. 70,461, subject to verification of the Rs. 30,000 already paid.

4. Concerning the disallowance of credit of Rs. 1,30,240 arising from the discharge of additional customs duty from the DEPB account, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to demonstrate any legal basis for such disallowance. Despite a subsequent notification clarifying the issue, the Tribunal noted that the law was in a state of confusion at the relevant time. Citing a High Court decision, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that in the absence of a specific legal provision, artificial constructions of the law should not render it unworkable. The Tribunal highlighted the appellant's bona fide actions and the evolving legal landscape, ultimately allowing the appellant's claim for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal also considered the principle that benefits granted through notifications should be effective from their date of issuance, as established by a Supreme Court ruling.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant on the issues related to the additional customs duty payment from the DEPB account.