9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (9) TMI 21 - AT - Central ExciseDemand Revenue contended that appellant is not legible for credit of duty already debited Original Authority after considering the fact rejected the Revenue contention.
Issues: Revenue's challenge against recredit entry disallowance by original authority.
In this case, the Revenue challenged an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the recredit entry made by the respondents in response to the cancellation of an invoice for goods clearance. The respondents had prepared an invoice for clearance of goods to a customer, but the order was cancelled by the customer, leading to the cancellation of the invoice as well. The respondents recredited the duty already debited under the cancelled invoice. The Revenue objected to the recredit, arguing that proper intimation was not given to the Assistant Commissioner and there was no evidence of the cancellation by the customer. The original authority disallowed the recredit entry. Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there was no doubt about the cancellation of the order, as it was mentioned in the monthly return filed by the respondents. The Commissioner noted that the invoice was incomplete, lacking essential details, and considered the non-intimation to the Assistant Commissioner a procedural lapse rather than a sufficient ground for disallowing the recredit entry. The Commissioner also highlighted that Rule 173G, requiring intimation of cancellation, applied to duty debited from PLA, not RG23A Part II, as in this case. Consequently, the Commissioner allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the recredit was a regularisation of entries. The Appellate Tribunal, after reviewing the grounds of appeal, found them to be repetitions of the original adjudicating authority's findings. The Tribunal agreed with the detailed reasoning provided by the appellate authority for accepting the recredit entry and rejected the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal upheld the decision to allow the recredit entry made by the respondents, emphasizing the technical nature of the lapse in intimation and the regularisation of entries under the circumstances.
|
