2017 (10) TMI 736 - AT - Central Excise

Suo moto credit taken - amount paid twice - invocation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 - Held that - the debits made by the appellant in the CENVAT Credit account and subsequently through PLA is nothing but double payment of tax on the same clearances - similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (5) TMI 430 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD wherein it was held that the amount paid by mistake cannot be termed as duty in the case on hand. There is no dispute that the appellant had discharged the entire duty liability subsequently in cash in effect twice cannot be made to go through the rigmarole of filing an application for refund of the amount debited by them in CENVAT account. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appellant utilized excess CENVAT credit for service tax liability
- Dispute over availing CENVAT credit and double payment of tax

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appellant utilized excess CENVAT credit for service tax liability
The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, utilized excess CENVAT credit for service tax liability in contravention of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. This led to a show-cause notice for appropriation of the amount paid and imposition of penalty. The first appellate authority rejected the appeal, stating that if the duty was paid twice, a refund claim should have been preferred. However, the appellant contended that they should be permitted to take CENVAT credit for the debited amount. The Tribunal considered the submissions and relevant case laws, including Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Vardhman Acrylics Ltd., and found that the appellant had discharged the duty liability twice, leading to a double payment of tax on the same clearances. The Tribunal allowed the appellant to avail the CENVAT credit of the excess amount paid.

Issue 2: Dispute over availing CENVAT credit and double payment of tax
The Tribunal examined the case law of Motorola India Pvt. Limited, where a similar situation occurred, and the High Court upheld the decision to allow the claim for excess amount paid. The Tribunal noted that the law as decided by the Larger Bench seemed incorrect, and the judgment of Motorola India Pvt. Limited held precedence. It was observed that the appellant, in this case, had discharged the duty liability twice, and it was unjust to require them to file a refund claim for the amount debited in the CENVAT account. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible to avail the CENVAT credit of the excess amount paid. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, allowing the appellant to take the CENVAT credit of the disputed amount.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case addressed the issue of utilizing excess CENVAT credit for service tax liability and the subsequent dispute over availing the credit and double payment of tax. By considering relevant case laws and legal provisions, the Tribunal allowed the appellant to avail the CENVAT credit of the excess amount paid, emphasizing the unjust nature of requiring a refund claim for the double payment of tax.