2010 (4) TMI 521 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Aerated Waters classified under chapter sub-heading 2201.20 and 2202.20 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and also avail the benefit of Cenvat Credit on the inputs/capital goods used in or in relation to manufacture of their final products. Payment of duty under wrong code. Payment of BED and SED from PLA in Basic Excise Duty head. Held that - mistake merely in specifying proper code. C.B.E.& C. Circular lying in PLA under one minor head to another. Assessee cannot be directed to pay again. Authority can require assessee to execute required documents for purpose of transfer of amount from one accounting code to another.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order for payment of Special Excise Duty, Penalty imposition, Compliance with payment procedures, Invocation of extended period of limitation, Bona fide mistake in payment code.

Analysis:
The appellants contested an order requiring them to pay Special Excise Duty, interest, and penalties. The audit revealed discrepancies in the payment of duties, specifically the utilization of credit for Special Excise Duty without proper balance. The show cause notice alleged short payment of Special Excise Duty, leading to the demand confirmation in the impugned order.

The appellants argued against the order on two main grounds. Firstly, they questioned the justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. Secondly, they claimed that the duty amount was already deposited, albeit partially under the wrong code, due to a bona fide mistake by an employee. The department, however, defended the order, citing non-compliance with duty payment procedures.

The Tribunal noted that while there were procedural lapses in specifying the correct code for duty payment, the total duty amount was transferred to the government account. The mistake did not indicate an intention to evade payment. The circular from the Board allowed the transfer of credit balances between minor heads, indicating no default in duty payment. The Tribunal concluded that the mistake was not deliberate evasion, and there was no basis for penalty imposition.

Upon review, the Tribunal deemed the mistake in depositing under the wrong code as a bona fide error. They ruled that the appellants should not be required to repay the amount to the government but should rectify the accounting code for proper record-keeping. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.