9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the respondent did was to correct the arithmetical error by making necessary entries in the register even before filing the form at the end of the month before the Excise Authorities. In the present case, when we find that there was nothing to be adjudicated upon, the mistaken double payment of excise duty made and when the amount is also not very large, we would not like to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal keeping the larger question of suo motu claim of refund open. In the case of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant v. Commissioner of C.Ex., [2002 (3) TMI 169 - CEGAT, BANGALORE], Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal was of the opinion that correction of errors and omissions in the entries would not require permission of the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat Register on 31.12.07. Subsequently, on realizing the mistake of paying excise duty twice, the respondent corrected the same by making necessary entry in the closing balance of Cenvat credit in the Cenvat Register. Thus, even while filing RG 23 form before the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities, the mistake was corrected. Department, however, objected to such suo motu correction of the credit entry. Primarily believing that the case was one of refund of duty already paid, the Department issued show cause notice on 29.8.09. After hearing the respondent, the Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings holding in favour of the department. The Department challenged the decision before the Commissioner who allowed the appeal u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 64 (Tri LB) is not appropriate in as much as in the present case the mistake was rectified immediately in the same month, before filing the RG 23A Part-II copy with the authorities, showing the correct quantum of Modvat credit available with the appellant. As such I set aside the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the appeal by restoring the order of the original adjudicating authority. Stay petition also gets disposed off. Counsel for the Department submitted that the respondent could not have unilaterally withdrawn the amount by reversing entries in the register. He submitted that the respondent should have applied for refund of duty even if the same was erroneously paid. Counsel relied on the decision of the Larg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent did was to correct the arithmetical error by making necessary entries in the register even before filing the form at the end of the month before the Excise Authorities. In the present case, when we find that there was nothing to be adjudicated upon, the mistaken double payment of excise duty made and when the amount is also not very large, we would not like to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal keeping the larger question of suo motu claim of refund open to be judged in an appropriate case. We may also notice that in the case of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant v. Commissioner of C.Ex., 2002 (149) ELT 708 (Tri. Bang.), Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal was of the opinion that correction of errors and omissions in the entries woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
