2017 (9) TMI 414 - AT - Central Excise

Utilization of CENVAT credit suo moto - payment of disputed duty through PLA along with interest - Revenue was of the view that the appellants should have filed refund claim under Section 11B and should not have taken Cenvat Credit suo moto - Held that - reliance placed in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III Versus M/s CEAT Ltd. 2013 (7) TMI 568 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where it was held that the debits were held to be of no consequence when the assessee was required to pay duty initially discharged using AED (GSI) credit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of credit utilization after payment of disputed duty through PLA along with interest.

Analysis:
The appellant, a company, faced denial of Cenvat Credit utilization due to financial difficulties in paying the duty on time, leading to initiation of action under Rule 8 (3A). Subsequently, the appellant paid the entire disputed duty through PLA along with interest but took re-credit of the same amount paid earlier through Cenvat. The Revenue contended that the appellant should have filed a refund claim under Section 11B instead of taking Cenvat Credit suo moto. A show-cause notice was issued, leading to confirmation by lower authorities, imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, and demand for interest. The appellant cited precedents like Alphine Pharmaceuticals, Ceat Ltd., and Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. to support their case.

Analysis (contd.):
The Tribunal examined the rival submissions and noted the Revenue's reliance on the BDH Industries Ltd. decision, which held that an assessee cannot take suo moto credit on wrongly paid duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) also based their decision on this precedent to deny re-credit to the appellant. In contrast, the appellant's counsel referenced the CEAT Ltd. case from the Bombay High Court, where a similar situation allowed the appellant to take credit. The Tribunal specifically highlighted paragraphs 6 & 7 of the CEAT Ltd. decision, emphasizing the legitimate earning and utilization of credit by the appellant, ultimately leading to the restoration of credit by the Commissioner. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, akin to the CEAT Ltd. case, and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision, pronounced on 6/9/17, favored the appellant, M/s. Panel Board & Laminates Ltd., based on the similarity of facts to the CEAT Ltd. case and the distinguishable nature of the BDH Industries Ltd. precedent. The judgment underscores the importance of legitimate credit utilization and restoration in cases of disputed duty payments, aligning with established legal principles and relevant precedents to grant relief to the appellant in this matter.