2013 (11) TMI 693 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance from Committee of Disputes Excess cenvat credit availed Held that - Following M/s. Burn Standard Co. Ltd Versus Commr. of Central Excise, Kol. II 2013 (11) TMI 615 - CESTAT KOLKATA - Clearance from Committee of Disputes is necessary for appeals filed prior to 18/2/2011 or it should be shown that the application for permission was pending before Committee of Disputes as on that date - the appellant could not show either clearance from Committee of Disputes or proof of pendency of their application for permission before Committee of Disputes as on 18.02.2011 in pursing their Appeal filed before this Tribunal - the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeals due to lack of COD clearance or pending application.
2. Payment of interest on excess Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed two main issues. Firstly, the maintainability of the appeals was challenged by the Revenue due to the absence of COD clearance or any pending application before COD. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that for appeals filed before 18/2/2011, COD clearance was necessary, or proof of a pending application before COD on that date. In this case, the appellant failed to provide either clearance from COD or evidence of a pending application before COD as of 18.02.2011. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it.

2. The second issue revolved around the payment of interest on excess Cenvat Credit taken by the appellant. The appellant had availed excess Cenvat Credit and short paid Central Excise duty, resulting in a recovery notice for interest under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. The appellant argued that they inadvertently took credit against the same invoice/challan twice and did not utilize the credit as they maintained sufficient balance. They cited various judgments to support their contention. On the contrary, the Revenue argued that interest is payable once credit is taken, as per a Supreme Court judgment, and pointed out procedural delays by the appellant. After considering both sides, the Tribunal did not delve into the merit of the interest payment issue due to the dismissal of the appeal based on maintainability grounds.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers the key legal issues and arguments presented by both parties, leading to the Tribunal's decision on the maintainability of the appeals and its impact on the interest payment dispute.