2016 (4) TMI 768 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of interest - Availed ineligible Cenvat credit on capital goods and service tax credit - No documentary proof submitted - Held that - in the absence of documentary proof, the matter needs to be remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority before whom the appellant must prove that there has only been availment and no utilization. If on perusal of the documents it is found that there has been only availment and no utilization, the levy of interest is unsustainable. Imposition of penalty - Held that - it appears that the mistake is purely of a clerical nature for which the appellant should not be penalized. There is nothing on record to prove the malafide which is an essential requisite for the imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the penalty imposed is set aside. - Appeal allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of demand of ?3,10,792 with interest and penalty for availing ineligible cenvat credit on capital goods and service tax credit.
- Contest against levy of interest and imposition of penalty.
- Applicability of interest and imposition of penalty.
- Contesting eligibility of credit.
- Re-decision on the issue of interest based on documentary proof.
- Imposition of penalty for clerical mistake without proof of malafide.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the interest and penalty imposed due to availing ineligible cenvat credit on capital goods and service tax credit. The period involved was specified, and the appellant claimed they did not utilize the credit but had inadvertently availed excess credit on capital goods. They referred to specific case laws to support their contentions regarding the availment of credit.

2. The respondent argued that the appellant wrongly availed cenvat credit for capital goods, contravening Rule 4(2)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Despite reversing the credit, the respondent contended that interest was still payable as per Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004, citing a relevant Board's Circular. The issue of interest and penalty was the main point of contest between both parties.

3. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not provide documentary proof of only availing and not utilizing the credit. Referring to a judgment from the Madras High Court, the Tribunal emphasized the need for documentary evidence to determine the utilization of credit. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for re-decision based on the High Court's judgment and principles of natural justice.

4. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal found the mistake to be of a clerical nature without any evidence of malafide intent. The imposition of penalty was set aside due to the absence of proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts as required under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.

5. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for remand to the adjudicating authority for re-examination based on the presence or absence of documentary evidence regarding the utilization of credit. The penalty was overturned due to the lack of proof of malafide intent, as required by the relevant legal provisions.