2013 (10) TMI 941 - AT - Central Excise

Interest on amount reversed - Reversal of cenvat credit Held that - The question whether any reversal of credit is required on account of the waste products has already been decided in the case of Manakpur Chini Mills Vs CCE Allahabad 2012 (7) TMI 474 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - there is no need for reversal of any cenvat credit in respect of inputs contained in such waste products as per Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004 - Once the duty demand itself was not legally sustainable, the appellant cannot be asked to pay the interest payment now being insisted upon to be paid in cash - there is no justification in sustaining the penalty - there is no need for any further reversal or recovery towards interest and penalty from the appellant Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant should reverse Cenvat credit proportional to the value of waste products generated during the manufacturing process of sugar.
2. Whether interest and penalty imposed on the appellant are sustainable.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a sugar manufacturer, generated waste products like bagasse and press mud during the manufacturing process, which were sold. The Revenue contended that the appellant should have reversed the Cenvat credit as per Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. A Show Cause Notice was issued for the period May 2008 to Dec 2011, resulting in a confirmed duty demand of Rs.1,65,522/- along with interest and penalties. The appellant had already reversed the duty demand and interest in the Cenvat credit account. The appellant did not contest the credit reversal but challenged the penalty and interest during the hearing.

2. The appellant's counsel cited a previous case, Manakpur Chini Mills Vs CCE Allahabad, which held that no reversal of Cenvat credit is required for inputs in waste products under Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004. The appellant argued that the interest demanded in cash and the penalty were not justified. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that once duty liability is accepted, interest must be paid in cash, not through Cenvat credit. The Tribunal considered both arguments and concluded that since the duty demand was not legally sustainable, the appellant should not be required to pay the interest demanded in cash or sustain the penalty.

3. The Tribunal found that the appellant had already reversed the Cenvat credit as required by Rule 6(3) of CCR and that demanding interest payment in cash was unjustified. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that no further reversal or recovery towards interest and penalty should be imposed on the appellant. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly.

This judgment clarifies the application of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding the reversal of Cenvat credit on waste products generated during manufacturing. It also highlights the legal principles governing the payment of interest and penalties in such cases, emphasizing the need for a legally sustainable duty demand to justify the imposition of interest and penalties on the appellant.