2019 (4) TMI 898 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - wrongly availed Cenvat credit under Rule 14 - Sub-section (2B) of Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - Held that - On going through the SCN, there is no allegation levelled as to suppression or mis-statement, etc; to invoke larger period of limitation. It is also not in dispute that on being pointed out the appellants had reversed the entire Cenvat credit of ₹ 41,09,664/- in RG23C (Capital Goods Register) which fact was duly intimated to the Revenue on 29.06.2007, which fact also stands acknowledged in the SCN at paragraph 03.05. It is a clear case where larger period is invoked for no reason, the Revenue never even whispered that the reversals were never there to allege availing and continue to enjoy any benefit of Cenvat credit. Discernibly, there is no Revenue loss since duty is made good along with interest, not just once - SCN is clearly issued invoking extended period of limitation in a routine manner and without any justification whatsoever for which reason, the impugned order cannot sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Original disallowing Cenvat credit, refund claim, interest, and penalty.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the Order-in-Original dated 25.22.2011, which disallowed wrongly availed Cenvat credit under Rule 14, refund claim, interest, and penalty. The appellant imported capital goods under the EPCG Scheme and inadvertently took Cenvat credit without paying the Additional Duty of Customs. Upon discovery of the error, the appellant reversed the entire Cenvat credit amount and paid the necessary interest. The Assistant Commissioner directed the appellant to reverse the amount through PLA, which was duly complied with. The Revenue issued an SCN dated 01.12.2010, beyond the normal period, proposing to demand the Cenvat credit availed. The appellant argued that the request for re-credit was not a suo moto refund but a correction, and the SCN was issued without justification beyond the normal limitation period.

The appellant relied on various decisions to support their contentions, emphasizing that the SCN invoked an extended period of limitation without any allegations of suppression or fraud. The appellant's compliance with reversing the Cenvat credit, payment of interest, and communication with the Revenue demonstrated their bonafides. The Tribunal noted that there was no Revenue loss as the duty was made good along with interest. The Tribunal concluded that the SCN was issued routinely without justification for invoking an extended limitation period. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential benefits as per law. The principle laid down in the decisions cited by the appellant was found to be applicable in this case.

The Tribunal's analysis focused on the lack of justification for invoking an extended limitation period in the SCN, the appellant's compliance with reversing the Cenvat credit, and the absence of allegations of suppression or fraud. The Tribunal emphasized the bonafides of the appellant and the absence of Revenue loss, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.