2003 (12) TMI 437 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of credit taken by the appellants.
2. Validity of the time limit for raising demands in case of correcting clerical errors.

Issue 1: Correctness of credit taken by the appellants

The appellants initially took credit of Rs. 13,874.88 on the impugned goods, which was later found to be incorrect as it represented sales tax, not excise duty. The appellants claimed it was a clerical mistake and corrected it by taking supplementary credit. The concerned Superintendent directed to reverse the supplementary credit, but the order was set aside on appeal, and de novo adjudication was ordered. The original authority dropped the demand as it was not issued within six months of taking the supplementary credit. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the time limits under Rule 57-I and Section 11A do not apply, and the demand can be raised within six months from the date of the order-in-appeal.

Issue 2: Validity of the time limit for raising demands in case of correcting clerical errors

After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, it was found that the appellants corrected a clerical error by taking the correct amount of credit. The rules do not prohibit such corrections, and all assessees are required to maintain accounts correctly as per Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The judge noted that demands to reverse wrongly taken credits must adhere to the time limits prescribed under the Rules and the Act. The judge disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the time limit should not apply from the date of the appellate order, stating that there is no provision in the law for such an interpretation. Consequently, the judge found the Commissioner (Appeals) order unsustainable in law and set it aside, allowing the appeal.

This judgment clarifies the importance of correctly maintaining accounts and registers, the permissibility of correcting clerical errors in credits, and the application of time limits for raising demands in such cases. It emphasizes that statutory time limits must be adhered to when reversing wrongly taken credits, and decisions should align with the provisions of the law.