Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Aircel Ltd vs Cce, Coimbatore on 3 November, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal Nos. ST/42147 to 42149/2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 160/2017 dated 17.7.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore)
M/s. Aircel Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Coimbatore Respondent
Appearance Ms. Sweta Giridhar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Arul C. Durairaj, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision: 03.11.2017 Final Order Nos. 42593-42595 / 2017 The issue in all these appeals being the same, they are heard together and are disposed by this common order.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the demand of interest and penalties imposed on the allegation that they have availed wrongful credit. The summary of the period involved and the amount of credit availed, as furnished by the appellant, is shown in the Table below:-
Period of Interest Amount of Credit availed Demand of interest Oct. 2006 to March 2008 Rs.12,74,920/- Rs.2,31,177/-
February 2011 to November 2013 Rs.19,17,706/- Rs.9,55,921/-
June 2010 to February 2013 Rs.43,11,953/- Rs.18,55,214/-
3. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Ms. Sweta Giridhar submitted that the appellant had sufficient balance during the relevant time and had reversed the wrongful availed credit much before utilization. She adverted to page 22 of the appeal paper book in which the opening and closing balance of CENVAT account is given for the relevant period.
4. The ld. AR Shri Arul C. Durairaj reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The issue involved is whether the appellants are liable to pay interest and penalty for the wrongly availed credit. From pages 20 to 22, it is seen that the appellant had sufficient closing balance during the relevant period when the credit was wrongly availed by them. Thus, it is established that appellant had reversed the credit before utilization. Applying the ratio laid down in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. 2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad.), rendered by the Honble jurisdictional High Court, I am of the view that the demand is unsustainable.
6. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.) Member (Judicial) Rex 3