2023 (8) TMI 1138 - AT - Central Excise

Suo-moto re-credit - restoration of second payment when the duty was paid twice - HELD THAT - There is no dispute on the fact that the appellant initially paid the duty on export twice, one at the time of clearance of goods and second on the closer of month along with monthly payment of duty. Therefore, there is no dispute that on one clearance duty was paid twice, therefore the duty paid second time needs to be restored to the appellant as credit, the appellant had taken suo-moto credit - if no discrepancy is found as regard the second time payment of duty and suo-moto re-credit thereof then no objection could have been raised by the department. The appellant being law abiding assessee even though suo-moto credit was available to them, they had reversed the same on pointing out by the audit officers. Thereafter, the department could have regularized by allowing the re-credit but instead the appellant were issued the show cause notice for demand of re-credit made by the appellant suo-moto despite the fact that they had already reversed the same - the show cause notice itself ab initio, void and illegal. The appellant has legal right to re-credit the amount of Rs. 1 crore, in their Cenvat Account - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the appellant paying duty on export of goods twice, leading to a demand for re-credit, interest, and penalty. The main contention is whether the appellant should have been issued a show cause notice for the duty paid twice and the subsequent suo-moto re-credit taken by them.

Detailed Judgment:

Issue 1: Duty paid twice and suo-moto re-credit
The appellant paid duty on export of goods twice, once at the time of clearance and then inadvertently included the duty paid on export in their monthly dues. Upon detection, they took suo-moto credit in their Cenvat account. The show cause notice proposed to demand the amount of suo-moto re-credit, interest, and penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty. The appellant contended that no show cause notice should have been issued once they reversed the re-credit. The appellant argued that duty cannot be demanded twice on clearance of goods. The Tribunal found that there was no dispute that duty was paid twice on one clearance, and the duty paid the second time needed to be restored to the appellant as credit. The appellant had taken suo-moto credit, which they reversed upon audit. The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for demand of re-credit was void and illegal as the appellant had already reversed the credit and was entitled to the re-credit. The appellant's legal right to re-credit the amount of Rs. 1 crore in their Cenvat Account was upheld, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that they were entitled to the re-credit of duty paid twice and that the show cause notice for the re-credit was void and illegal. The appellant's legal right to re-credit the amount in their Cenvat Account was upheld, and the appeal was allowed.