S.S. Garg ORDER
S.S. Garg, Member (J)
1. The appellant has filed two appeals against the common impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) vide his order dated 22.11.2012 vide which the learned Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellant. Since in both the appeals the issue is identical, hence both these appeals are disposed of by this common order.
2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of electronic connector harness and other IT products classifiable under Chapter 85 of the First Schedule of CETA, 1985. The appellant availed CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax paid on input services. In the month of March 2009, audit party visited the appellant's premises and audit party observed that the appellant has availed CENVAT credit twice on the same invoice and also that appellant availed CENVAT credit on same bill of entry and the said irregular credit worked out to Rs. 7,10,012/- and further 100% CENVAT credit has been availed in respect of capital goods in the same financial year in which it was purchased. Excess credit in this regard amounted to Rs. 9,95,062/-. On being pointed out, the appellant voluntarily reversed such irregular credit availed on 25.3.2009. Thereafter the internal audit team issued an audit note wherein interest of Rs. 1,76,023/- in respect of the aforesaid reversal of CENVAT credit was demanded. Subsequently, appellant received show-cause notice alleging demand of interest of Rs. 1,76,023/- in respect of irregular availment of CENVAT credit and also proposed penalty under Rule 15 CCR, 2004. Appellant refuted the allegation in the show-cause notice. The adjudicating authority vide its OIO dated 8.6.2011 upheld the allegation in the show-cause notice and confirmed the demand of interest of Rs. 1,76,023/- and appropriated the interest paid under protest. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Central excise mainly on the ground that mere wrong availment of CENVAT credit without utilisation of the same does not attract interest and penalty and consequently penalty not leviable when wrongly availed credit has been voluntarily reversed. The learned Commissioner (A) vide his order dated 22.12.2012 rejected the appeal of the appellant. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by ignoring the provisions of the law and also without following the precedent decision on the same issue by the higher judicial forum and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the appellant has committed inadvertent mistake by wrongly availing the CENVAT credit with no intention to evade payment of duty. As the appellant at the time of availment of irregular credit used CENVAT credit accumulated in their books of accounts to the tune of Rs. 12/- crores whereas CENVAT credit availed was only to the tune of Rs. 18,57,641/- during the relevant period. He further submitted that reversal of CENVAT credit wrongly availed and reversed before utilisation amounts to non-availment of CENVAT credit and hence interest and penalty not payable under Rule 15(1) of CCR, 2004. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions.
"(i) Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, LTU, Bangalore v. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. : MANU/KA/1284/2011 : 2012 (279) E.L.T. 209 (Kar.)
(ii) CCE, Allahabad v. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd.: MANU/CE/0636/2013 : 2014 (300) E.L.T. 449 (Tri.-Del.)
(iii) Crest Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur: