Order date – 01 December 2022

Facts –

• The Appellant, Schott Glass India Pvt Ltd instead of taking 50% credit in the year when the capital goods were received and remaining 50% was admissible in the next financial year, they have taken 100% credit.
• The appellant have reversed the excess credit of 50% along with interest.

Issue –

• Whether the appellant is liable for penalty under Rule 15(2) or the charge that appellant have availed 100% credit instead of 50% and remaining 50% to be availed in the next Financial year in respect of capital goods?

Order –

• The Tribunal find that there is no mala fide that can be attributed towards the appellant for this lapse as the appellant is otherwise eligible for Cenvat credit of the remaining 50% within a short time i.e. in the next financial year. Therefore, this lapse is inadvertent and cannot be said that there is any intention to evade duty or fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit.
• In this fact the case should have been concluded, on the basis of appellant’s reversal of excess credit of 50% along with payment of interest thereon which could have resulted into non issuance of SCN and consequently no penalty should have been imposed. Therefore, in this fact since there is no mala fide on the part of the appellant, the case is clearly covered by Section 11A(2B)..
• Accordingly, the penalty is not imposable on the appellant. Hence the penalty is set aside. Appeal is allowed.