2018 (11) TMI 739 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty - it was alleged that appellants have availed CENVAT credit based on invoices issued by their head office as input service distributor without getting registered as ISD - Held that - It is seen that they have reversed the credit much before issuance of the show cause notice. It is also submitted that the appellants had sufficient balance in their CENVAT account - penalty cannot sustain relying on the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAI VERSUS M/S. STRATEGIC ENGINEERING (P) LTD. 2014 (11) TMI 89 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing CENVAT credit without ISD registration
2. Eligibility of credit for professional charges
3. Imposition of penalty

Analysis:
1. The appellants were engaged in manufacturing activities and availing CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services. They had availed credit based on invoices from their head office as an input service distributor without being registered as ISD, resulting in a demand of &8377; 18,24,162. Additionally, they claimed credit for professional charges related to building extension and air-conditioner installation amounting to &8377; 4,61,329, which was deemed ineligible. The original authority confirmed the demand and penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal.

2. During the appeal, the appellant did not contest the demand or credit but focused on challenging the equal penalty imposed. The appellant had already reversed the credit before the show cause notice was issued. The argument presented was that since there was only one unit besides the head office, the credit distribution was done under a bona fide belief of eligibility. The installation of air-conditioners was considered as premises renovation, making the credit eligible. Despite the credit being eligible, the appellant had reversed it and was not disputing the merits, requesting the penalty to be set aside.

3. The Assistant Commissioner supported the findings in the impugned order, while the appellant emphasized their compliance with reversing the credit before the notice. After hearing both sides, the Member (Judicial) noted that the appellant had reversed the credit preemptively and had sufficient balance in their CENVAT account. Referring to a previous judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, it was concluded that the penalty imposed could not be sustained. Therefore, the penalty was set aside without affecting the rest of the order, partially allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of availing CENVAT credit without ISD registration, the eligibility of credit for professional charges, and the imposition of penalty. The decision focused on the appellant's proactive reversal of credit, the belief in credit eligibility, and the applicability of legal precedents in determining the penalty outcome.