2022 (3) TMI 507 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - Refund of CENVAT Credit - input services used for the manufacture of final products, which were cleared for export under bond - N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT) dt. 18/06/2012 - period April 2015 to June 2015 - HELD THAT - Though the appellate authority has taken note of the claim of the appellant as regards the inadvertent/clerical error, but has not accepted on the ground that the same was not brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority. It is not the case therefore that the error was not inadvertent, the rejection is for different reason and hence it is clear that the inadvertent error is bona fide and on this, the First Appellate Authority should have called a report from the adjudicating authority and then passed appropriate order as per law. The ends of justice would be met if the matter is sent back to the file of the adjudicating authority who shall verify the inadvertent error which is not disbelieved by the First Appellate Authority, who shall also verify the closing balance in the cenvat credit as on the date of appellant s claim, as appearing in the appellant s books - appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on inadvertent error in mentioning cenvat credit amount in the claim.

Analysis:
The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture and export of tea bags and packet tea, filed a refund claim for an amount under Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) for refund of cenvat credit availed on input services used for export. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned a lesser amount than claimed, rejecting a portion of the refund. The appellant approached the First Appellate Authority, pleading inadvertent error in mentioning the cenvat credit amount. The Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the claim, leading to the present appeal.

The Judicial Member noted that the appellate authority acknowledged the inadvertent error but rejected the claim on the grounds that it was not brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority. The Judicial Member found that the error was indeed inadvertent and suggested sending the matter back to the adjudicating authority to verify the error and the closing balance in the cenvat credit as on the claim date. The Judicial Member emphasized the need for a detailed report from the adjudicating authority before passing a final order.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand. The adjudicating authority was directed to pass a speaking order within three months, considering the period in question. The authority was instructed to provide reasonable opportunities for the appellant to present their case. All contentions were left open, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair and thorough review of the refund claim.

(Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11/03/2022)