2015 (1) TMI 677 - HC - Central Excise

Rectification of code of assessee wrongly mentioned while taking credit - Held that - Refusal to correct the assessee s code and to insist on payment of ₹ 18,60,000/- and thereafter seek a refund of the same, is ex facie erroneous and untenable. There is absolutely no justification for calling upon the petitioners to pay the sum and which they otherwise are entitled to take credit of. In these circumstances and in the facts peculiar to the petitioners, so also without creating any precedent for future cases - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correction of registration number in GAR-7 Challan
2. Treatment of deposited amount as duty payable
3. Refusal to correct assessee's code

Correction of Registration Number in GAR-7 Challan:
The petitioners sought a writ to correct the registration number in a challan from AAACK2479CXM002 to AAACK2479CXM003. The factories were registered under the Central Excise Act, and the petitioners had mistakenly mentioned the wrong registration number in their filings. Despite paying the duty in full, they were asked to seek a refund under the correct code. The court noted the innocuous nature of the request and granted the writ, allowing the correction without the need for payment and refund, within four weeks.

Treatment of Deposited Amount as Duty Payable:
The petitioners requested that the amount deposited be treated as duty payable by the factory for goods cleared in December 2010. The authorities refused, insisting on payment under the correct assessee code and seeking a refund. The court found this refusal erroneous and unjustifiable. It held that there was no reason to demand payment of the sum already entitled to as credit. The court allowed the writ petition, directing the corrections to be made without setting a precedent for future cases.

Refusal to Correct Assessee's Code:
The Commissioner, representing the respondents, stated that there was no legal provision empowering him to make the corrections without payment and refund. The court disagreed with this stance, deeming the refusal to correct the assessee's code and demand payment followed by a refund as baseless. It found no justification for such actions, especially when the correction could have been allowed without the need for payment and refund. The court allowed the writ petition, making the rule absolute in favor of the petitioners and ordering the corrections to be made within four weeks.