2007 (3) TMI 170 - AT - Central Excise

Demand for wrong availment of credit Nothing on record to show wrong availment or suppression of facts Larger period not invokable Appellant has already reversed the required amount of credit so balance of credit is entitled Demand penalty and interest not imposable

Summary

Issues:
Denial of Cenvat credit for various items.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the OIA No. 211/2004 dated 24-12-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. The issues involved the denial of Cenvat credit for various items. The appellant's consultant argued several points. Firstly, a demand was made for availing credit on quantities short received, which was already reversed. Secondly, it was alleged that full Cenvat credit had been taken for inputs short received, but the excess balances were not considered. Thirdly, credit was sought to be reversed for items written off, but the inputs were still capable of being used. Fourthly, duty payment was contested when inputs were cleared as such. Fifthly, credit on rejected inputs was disputed. Sixthly, credit was taken based on a Xerox copy of Bill of Entry. Seventhly, credit in respect of inputs sent to job workers not reversed within 180 days was questioned.

The Revenue claimed irregularities in availing Cenvat credit based on seven annexures to the Show Cause Notice. The appellant argued that they had already reversed credit in some cases and that demanding duty on shortages without considering excess was incorrect. They contended that credit need not be reversed for written-off items if available in the factory and that duty payment was sufficient when inputs were cleared as such. The appellants had already reversed credit in certain cases, and for the remaining balance, they were entitled to credit. The demand was deemed unsustainable, and penalties and interest demands were not upheld. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and rejecting the penalties and interest demands. The appellant's contentions were accepted, and the demand for Cenvat credit denial was deemed unsustainable. The judgment was pronounced on 2-3-2007.