2018 (4) TMI 1493 - AT - Central Excise

Adjustment of excess amount paid - whether the appellant is entitled to adjustment of any sums which they claimed to have been paid in excess and which is available for credit pursuant to being successful in appeal out of the demand of ₹ 12,78,372/-? - Held that - there is error of fact as demand of ₹ 4,58,444/- with interest and penalty which was confirmed under the provisions of Rule 8(3A) and upheld by Order-in-Appeal dated 28th November, 2013 have been set aside by Final Order of this Tribunal dated 19/05/2016 in Appeal No. E/53260/2014 wherein demand under Rule 8(3A) from July, 2011 to September, 2011 was set aside by this Tribunal and held show cause notice was not maintainable. There have been mis-carriage of justice - matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority who shall pass an order and issue adjustment sheet to the appellant after hearing and considering the adjustment being claimed by them out of demand of ₹ 12,78,372/- - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Adjustment of excess sums claimed by the appellant against the demand of ?12,78,372.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, ceased production in January 2013. The Revenue claimed an admitted tax of ?13,78,372 for January and February 2013. The appellant sought adjustments for various sums claimed to have been paid in excess. These included amounts wrongfully deposited under interest, excess tax deposits from December 2010 to February 2014, and pre-deposit amounts made for the present appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had appealed against an attachment order for ?12,78,372. The Commissioner called for a report from the Assistant Commissioner, but the appellant was not provided a copy, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The appellant's request for adjustment was not addressed before the attachment order was issued. The Tribunal also found an error in the demand amount, which had been set aside in a previous appeal due to the show cause notice being deemed not maintainable.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The impugned order and the attachment notice were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. The Authority was directed to pass an order considering the adjustments claimed by the appellant against the demand of ?12,78,372. The appellant was instructed to appear before the Authority within 45 days of receiving the order for a hearing.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand to address the issues related to the adjustment of excess sums claimed by the appellant against the demand amount.