2018 (8) TMI 467 - AT - Central Excise

Payment of duty by utilizing CENVAT Credit account - N/N. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 as amended - Held that - Para 2B of the said Notification makes it clear that the appellant is required to utilize the Cenvat Credit first and thereafter they have to pay the duty - In the instant case, the appellant had not utilised the credit first, instead they paid the duty from the PLA and claimed the refund, which is contrary to the provisions of the Notification. CBEC vide letter dated 11.06.2012 clarified that excess amount of refund to the extent of Cenvat Credit was not taken, will either be deducted from the refund payable to the assessee or recovered along with the interest as the case may be. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal due to confusion over multiple appeal numbers, Disallowance of Cenvat Credit under Notification No. 20/2007-CE, Contravention of exemption provisions by not utilizing Cenvat Credit first.

Delay in filing appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal but faced confusion as the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of two appeals under one appeal number. The appellant filed one appeal on time, but a subsequent appeal was filed late due to technical reasons. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the subsequent appeal, allowing the appeal to be heard.

Disallowance of Cenvat Credit under Notification No. 20/2007-CE:
The appellant, a cement manufacturer availing exemption under Notification No. 20/2007-CE, faced disallowance of Cenvat Credit by the Adjudicating authority for GTA Service utilized during specific months. The Revenue contended that the appellant contravened exemption provisions by utilizing Cenvat Credit and paying excess duty contrary to the notification. The Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appellant filing appeals.

Contravention of exemption provisions by not utilizing Cenvat Credit first:
The Tribunal analyzed Para -2B of Notification No. 20/2007-CE, emphasizing the requirement for the manufacturer to first utilize Cenvat Credit before paying duty. The appellant paid duty from PLA instead of utilizing Cenvat Credit, leading to a refund claim rejection. Referring to a CBEC letter and a Tribunal decision on a similar issue, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeals filed by the appellant.

This judgment addressed the delay in filing appeals, the disallowance of Cenvat Credit under Notification No. 20/2007-CE, and the contravention of exemption provisions by not utilizing Cenvat Credit first, providing detailed analysis and legal interpretation for each issue involved.