2013 (1) TMI 663 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Excise duty erroneously made by assessee Whether Excise duty erroneously made by assessee should be refunded or not Assessee while making e-payment of duty liability for their Chennai unit had erroneously made it for their Podicherry unit whose registration was cancelled Held that - It is only an human error and duty liability which was remitted erroneously under erstwhile Podicherry code number a non-functioning unit and whose Central Excise Registration was cancelled Since the duty by mistake is not duty due to the Government, the question of filing application under Section 11B also does not arise Due to indifferent attitude of the officer, the appellant was put under irreparable monetary loss Appellant is entitled for the refund of excess amount of duty paid along with interest Decided in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on erroneous payment allocation and subsequent appeal grounds challenging the order.

Analysis:
The appellant, SCG Ex d Tech Pvt. Ltd., filed a refund claim due to an error in remitting e-payment of duty for their Chennai unit, where the duty amount of Rs. 4,65,000 was mistakenly credited to their Puducherry unit account. The Lower Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim, leading to the appellant's appeal. The appellant raised grounds including Revenue consideration, lack of provision for suo motu credit or refund, legal precedents supporting their claim, and legal infirmity in the Respondent's order.

During the Personal Hearing, the appellant's representative explained the error in crediting the amount to the wrong unit's account and requested a refund. The Commissioner carefully reviewed the case records and submissions. The main issue was whether the rejection of the refund claim was justified. It was acknowledged that the error was due to human mistake, resulting in the duty amount being remitted to the wrong unit's account. The appellant rectified the error by remitting the duty to the correct account and applied for a refund of the mistakenly paid amount. The Commissioner noted that the duty was accounted for in the Government account, and the excess duty paid was sought as a refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner emphasized that the appellant, having paid the duty in error, was entitled to a refund with interest.

Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The Order-in-Original was overturned, affirming the appellant's entitlement to the refund of the excess duty paid, along with interest.