2016 (2) TMI 442 - HC - Central Excise

Eligibility of CENVAT credit - based on tribunal decision - whether the assessees are not even entitled to file an Appeal (before the CESTAT), based on a mere communication and therefore, the finding given by the CESTAT stating that the assessees ought to have been given CENVAT Credit, cannot be taken advantage of, by the assessees? - Held that - When the input duty credit is allowed, the duty is deemed to have been paid on the original date of payment of duty. When input duty credit is allowed, then there is no question of any liability to pay further duty. In the absence of the Department challenging the findings of the Tribunal that there is no justification to deny CENVAT Credit, the Revenue has no case and the Department is not at liberty to demand either interest or penalty. When the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules framed thereunder, permit the adjustment of CENVAT Credit, and when the CENVAT Credit is granted, there is no outstanding duty payable and therefore, the question of payment of interest and penalty do not arise. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal confirming the erroneous holding that the letter/communication demanding payment of penalty is not an order but a mere communication?
2. Whether any penalty can be demanded in the absence of duty payable by the appellant?
3. Whether any penalty will arise when the Central Excise Act and Rules permit adjustment of CENVAT credit towards duty payable?

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of Communication:
The appellants contended that the communication demanding payment of penalty should be treated as an order, not merely a letter. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the communication was not an order but a mere letter. However, it was argued that the content and implications of the communication, which threatened recovery proceedings, made it appealable. The court cited the case of *Kanaga Durga Clothers (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Madurai*, where a similar communication was deemed appealable. Thus, the court concluded that the communication demanding penalty was indeed appealable.

2. Demand of Penalty in Absence of Duty:
The appellants argued that since the duty was already available as CENVAT credit, there was no liability to pay additional duty, and thus, no penalty should be imposed. The Tribunal had earlier found that denying the assessee's input duty credit was unjustifiable. This finding was not challenged by the Revenue. The court referred to the definitions and provisions under Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, which deal with interest and penalty on delayed payment of duty. It was highlighted that when CENVAT credit is allowed, the duty is considered paid on the original date, negating any further duty liability. The court cited precedents where penalties were not imposed due to the existence of CENVAT credit and procedural compliance issues.

3. Penalty Arising from CENVAT Credit Adjustment:
The court examined whether penalties could be imposed when CENVAT credit adjustments are allowed. The appellants pointed out that once CENVAT credit is granted, there is no outstanding duty, and thus, no basis for penalty or interest. The court referred to cases like *Siddarth Petro Products v. CCE* and *Asian Alloys v. CCE*, where penalties were deemed inappropriate when Modvat/CENVAT credits were allowed. The court also noted that the Tribunal's findings supporting the appellants' right to CENVAT credit were not contested by the Revenue. Consequently, the court concluded that the demand for penalty and interest was unjustified.

Conclusion:
The court held that the communication demanding penalty was appealable, no penalty could be demanded in the absence of duty payable, and penalties were not justified when CENVAT credit adjustments were allowed. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the appellants, and the appeals were allowed.

← Previous Next →