2005 (1) TMI 190 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Finalization of provisional assessment by Assistant Commissioner
- Legality of issuing corrigendum to increase deemed credit amount
- Competency of Assistant Commissioner to issue corrigendum

Finalization of Provisional Assessment by Assistant Commissioner:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Banswara Textile Mills Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal No. 525/2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants manufactured processed textile fabrics on job charges basis and were directed by the Superintendent (Central Excise) to make payment of duty based on the assessable value. The duty was paid based on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Ujagar Prints. Subsequently, the Board clarified the duty payment for goods manufactured on job work basis. The Assistant Commissioner finalized the assessment, finding that excess duty had been paid and excess deemed credit had been availed of by the appellants. The appellants requested the Assistant Commissioner to adjust the refund amount against the demand, which was not accepted. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confirmation of demand but directed the Assistant Commissioner to adjust the refund amount against the demand.

Legality of Issuing Corrigendum to Increase Deemed Credit Amount:
The main contention raised was whether the Assistant Commissioner could issue a corrigendum increasing the amount of deemed Modvat credit after finalizing the assessment. The learned Advocate argued that once the assessment was finalized, the Assistant Commissioner could not issue a corrigendum to enhance the deemed credit without following due process. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Advocate contended that additional demands cannot be imposed without issuing a show cause notice and providing a personal hearing. The Assistant Commissioner, however, argued that the corrigendum was issued to correct a clerical/arithmetical mistake and not on any substantive issue.

Competency of Assistant Commissioner to Issue Corrigendum:
Upon considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal noted that the changes made in the corrigendum appeared to be arithmetical in nature and not substantive. The Tribunal cited a previous case where it was held that a corrigendum could be issued to correct clerical or typographical errors. As the corrigendum in question only involved changing figures based on an arithmetical error, the Tribunal held that the Assistant Commissioner was justified in issuing the corrigendum. It was emphasized that no substantive change in decision was made, and the correction of a clerical/arithmetical mistake was permissible. Therefore, the appeal was rejected, and the Tribunal found no merit in challenging the issuance of the corrigendum to adjust the deemed Modvat credit amount.