2019 (5) TMI 1564 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess amount debited while filing the ER-1 Return - HELD THAT - The debit of the excess amount was only an arithmetical/clerical mistake and the said amount paid by mistake cannot be termed as duty. It is deposit only. There is force in the contention of the appellants that although they have submitted the documents in support of their claim before the lower authorities but the same was not considered by any of the authority below. Matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity to the appellants and after taking into consideration the documents produced by the Appellants - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of taking credit of excess amount debited in ER-1 Return.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Tax (Appeals), Raigad regarding the appellant's suo moto credit of an excess amount debited while filing the ER-1 Return. The appellant had mistakenly debited ?6,38,824 instead of ?62,231 for November 2015, resulting in an excess payment of ?5,76,503. The appellant informed the Range Superintendent of the error and requested corrections, but since revision of returns was not allowed during that period, they took credit of the excess amount for the subsequent month. The Range Superintendent directed them to reverse the credit, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent demand confirmation with interest and penalty by the Adjudicating Authority, upheld by the Commissioner.

The appellant argued that the excess amount was not duty and thus filing a refund claim was unnecessary. They claimed to have submitted supporting letters to the authorities, which were allegedly not considered. The appellant contended that the excess debit was a clerical error and not duty, emphasizing that the documents supporting their claim were not reviewed by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Member (Judicial) found merit in the appellant's argument, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision. The Authority was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the appellant, consider the submitted documents, and review any fresh evidence as per law.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, with the Member (Judicial) emphasizing the need for a fresh assessment considering the appellant's arguments and supporting documents. The decision highlighted the distinction between an arithmetical/clerical mistake and a duty payment, indicating that the excess amount was a deposit and not a duty liability.