2020 (1) TMI 485 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery / Forfeiture of amount deposited in the Escrow account instead of refund - Amount was paid by utilizing the credit and challan - HELD THAT - The issue with regard to demand arising consequent to denial of exemption benefit is not in dispute. In fact, the assessee appellant has already made the duty payment. The Ld. Commissioner has duly noted the fact that said payment of duty has been affected both by challan payment and CENVAT Credit utilization. However, he rejected the appeal with the observation that credit cannot be further allowed, which in our view is clearly erroneous inasmuch as the assessee has sought relief for the amount which has been paid twice. The Ld. Commissioner was not required to re-decide the credit eligibility in the impugned order. The Ld. Commissioner, instead of arriving at the conclusion that credit cannot be further allowed, which was never before him, ought to have appreciated the fact of payment of amount by challan as well as by credit utilization has been made by the appellant - Since the benefit of exemption has been denied and the assessee has duly made the payment by utilization of credit as also accepted by the department, the payment of amount by challan has to be at best considered as deposit which cannot be retained by the department and is liable to be refunded back. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of exemption benefit and forfeiture of amount deposited in Escrow account.
2. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit for the period from March 2004 to March 2005.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala, availed exemption under Notification No. 8/2004-CE. The dispute arose when the Ld. Commissioner ordered the forfeiture of the amount deposited in the Escrow account due to alleged violation of exemption conditions. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration, highlighting the violation of principles of natural justice in the earlier order. Subsequently, the Ld. Commissioner confirmed the forfeiture but allowed the appellant to take back the utilized CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal, in a later order, set aside the Commissioner's decision, noting pending Show Cause Notices for disallowing CENVAT Credit. The Ld. Commissioner's final order in 2017 reiterated the violation of exemption conditions but stated that the charges for wrong credit utilization had been dropped earlier. The Ld. Commissioner concluded that no further CENVAT Credit was admissible, leading to the appellant's appeal.

2. The Tribunal, in its analysis, noted that the issue of demand due to denial of exemption benefit was not disputed, and the appellant had already made the duty payment through challan and CENVAT Credit. The Ld. Commissioner's rejection of further credit allowance was deemed erroneous as the appellant sought relief for the amount paid twice. The Tribunal emphasized that the credit eligibility had already been decided in favor of the appellant in a previous order, which the Ld. Commissioner failed to consider. The Tribunal directed the refund of the amount paid by challan, considering it a deposit that cannot be retained by the department. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of denial of exemption benefit and admissibility of CENVAT Credit meticulously, highlighting procedural errors and emphasizing the rightful refund of the amount paid twice by the appellant. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the Ld. Commissioner's order and allow the appeal showcased a fair and just interpretation of the legal intricacies involved in the case.