Hng Float Glass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, - Vadodara-II - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (19 Jan 2018)

For erroneous credit availed, even if, not utilized, interest could be applicable for the normal period of limitation

MANU/CS/0012/2018

Excise

In the facts of present case, the Appellant had wrongly taken excess credit of Rs. 9,97,32,292 during the period September 2008 to January 2009 on imported capital goods. Consequently, they have reversed the credit in February 2009, but availed to discharge interest for wrong availment of the said credit. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to them on 31st August, 2009 proposing recovery of interest of Rs. 17,80,894/- under the provisions of Section 11AB read with Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed, however, no penalty imposed. Hence, the present appeal. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether interest is payable on the erroneous Cenvat credit availed during the period September 2008 to January 2009.

There is no dispute of the fact that, the Appellant had incorrectly availed Cenvat credit of the amount of additional customs duty and countervailing duty forgone while the capital goods are imported under the EPCG Scheme. It is the contention of the Appellant that, since the said credit has not been utilized, therefore, interest for the intervening period is not applicable. Present Tribunal in the case of Atul Ltd. and others vide its final order after analyzing the principles of the law laid down in this regard held that, erroneous credit availed even if not utilized; interest could be applicable for the normal period of limitation.

The principles of law laid down in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., case by the Karnataka High Court, was in a different factual matrix, whereas the present case relates to excess credit availed, but, not utilized, hence, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In these circumstances, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.

Tags : EXCESS CREDIT INTEREST PAYMENT