Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Chandra Automobiles India Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Coimbatore on 3 November, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. ST/42119/2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 157/2017 dated 12.7.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore)
M/s.Chandra Automobiles India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Coimbatore Respondent
Appearance Ms. D. Naveena, 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 No. 42596 / 2017 The allegation against the appellant is that they availed wrongful CENVAT credit of Rs.92,014/- and that they are liable to pay the interest and penalties. A show cause notice was issued proposing to recover interest and penalties on the allegation of wrongful availment of credit which after adjudication confirmed the demand of interest and imposed penalties. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal.
2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Ms. D. Naveena submitted that the mistake was pointed out in the audit conducted in December 2010 and the appellant availed the credit in October 2009. On being pointed out, the appellant reversed part of the amount on 11.1.2011 and the balance of Rs.75,543/- was reversed on 3.3.2011. However, the same was recorded in their ST 3 returns filed in April 2015 to September 2015. The appellant had sufficient balance of CENVAT credit during the relevant time when the credit was wrongly availed. That therefore as per the ratio of the decision laid in Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. 2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad.), the appellant is not liable to pay interest or penalties. She also submitted that the department has alleged suppression of facts and invoked the extended period of limitation. The mistake was pointed out during audit in December 2010 and the show cause notice has been issued much later in 2011. That therefore the allegation of suppression of facts is without basis as the appellant had already reversed the credit which was wrongfully availed.
3. The ld. AR Shri Arul C. Durairaj reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
4. Heard both sides.
5. As narrated above, the appellant has reversed the credit before utilization. In pages 49 and 50 of the appeal paper book, the appellant has furnished the opening and closing balance during the relevant period. It is seen that the appellant had sufficient balance of CENVAT credit during the relevant period when the credit was wrongly availed and it is seen that they have reversed the same before utilization. In such circumstances, the ratio laid down by the Honble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. (supra) squarely covers the issue.
6. Following the same, I am of the view that the demand of interest and penalties are unwarranted. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.) Member (Judicial) Rex 3