Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 129 - AT - Central ExciseUtilization of CENVAT Credit - credit availed during the next period utilized for duty of the previous period - one-to-one correlation - Held that:- When there is no one to one correlation between the output and the input for the purpose of utilization of CENVAT credit and in the absence of specific provision denying the utilization of CENVAT credit during the default period, in case of default by the appellant in monthly payment, utilization of CENVAT credit during the next month for payment of duty relating to the previous month cannot be faulted with. Needless to say the interest is liable to be paid and appellants have apparently paid the interest for delayed payment next month. At best it can be said that availment of CENVAT credit in the subsequent month is a procedural violation since strictly going by the law, credit could not have been used. - Utilization of credit allowed. As regards penalty, there is no doubt that there is a default in making payment on monthly basis. Further the benefit of BIFR decision also in my opinion is not applicable to the assessee. This is because while BIFR had allowed them to pay the principal in installment over a period of 7 years and had waived interest and penalty, the appellants have chosen to pay the entire amount and take the CENVAT credit back in 2008 itself. Therefore appellants themselves have not availed the benefit extended by BIFR which apparently is due to the fact that by that time BIFR passed the order extending the benefit, the financial position of the appellant had improved and they were in a position to pay the amount. Similarly for payment of interest also, no waiver was available. Since the appellants have not availed the order of the BIFR as regards principal, obvious conclusion is that there was no need for the same. The principal and interest and statutory liability and the same crystallised in the year 2008 and the same was discharged. Therefore I do not think that the benefit of waiver of penalty in terms of BIFR order can be extended to the appellant. - However, penalty reduced - Decided partly in favour of assesse.
|