9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r No.2900001399/109 for supply of Lot ID No.301999100412, project 361035, the respondent inadvertently raised Invoice No.200000000000097 dated 12.04.2012 indicating full Purchase Order value of Rs.12,94,06,000/- and tax amounting to Rs.1,83,93,768/- of goods "operational spares". Having noticed the inadvertent mistake, the appellant stopped the despatch of the material and cancelled the original invoice on the very day. They subsequently issued a fresh invoice bearing No.200000000000112 dated 13.04.2012 on the next day indicating therein the assessable value of the very goods for Rs.2,30,00,000/- and tax liability amounting to Rs.28,42,800/- and despatched the material under cover of the fresh invoice dated 13.04.2012. Consolidated payment of duty was made vide debit entry (including cancelled invoice) in RG-23 part-II during the month of April 2012 and accordingly declared the same in their monthly return ER-1 for the month of April 2012. 3. Thus, as from the above, it can be noted that the respondent having discharged duty liability twice, they filed a claim for refund for such erroneously paid duty in the month of October 2012. The department subsequently issued a show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voice was generated wrongly. The finding by Ld.Adjudicator that value in invoice no.200000000000097 dated 12.04.2012 and Invoice No.2000000000000112 dated 13.04.2012 are different, is clearly justified by the Appellant. Further non-intimation about cancellation of invoice no.200000000000097 dated 12.04.2012 is not so fatal that due refund could be rejected. 5. The Department has challenged the aforesaid order of the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) for the reason that the respondent had failed to intimate the jurisdictional authorities about the cancellation of the invoice and that the monthly return did not indicate any excess duty discharged by the respondent. However, in Excise Appeal No.75765 of 2015, the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) while rejecting the Department‟s appeal held it as not maintainable and observed as under: "7. I find that Adjudicating Authority has passed refund order in the light of O-I-A dated 21.05.2014. It is a different matter that the Department has already filed an appeal before Hon'ble CESTAT against O-I-A dated 21.05.2014. Without any adverse verdict against O-I-A dated 21.05.2014, the same has to be followed. During the course of hearing, the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there was no clearance of goods under 200000000000097 dated 12.04.2012. 9. Thus, with regard to the issues as raised by the Revenue in the matter and outlined in Para 3, the appellants have essentially claimed as : Charge Response (i) As per scrutiny of ER-1 return for the month of April 2012, no excess duty is discharged by the Respondent The said contention raised by the department is grossly erroneous inasmuch as table 4 of ER-1 return for the period April 12, clearly reflects payment of total duty through Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.5,97,48,011/- (Basic-5,80,07,778/-, Ed. Cess-Rs.11,60, 155/- and Rs.5,80,078/-) which is inclusive of excess payment of duty Rs.1,83,93,768/-. Copy of ER-1 and the calculation back up is already enclosed as Annexure-5 and 6. Hence, the contention raised by the Department is not tenable. (ii) No intimation regarding cancellation of the invoice was given by the Respondent to the concerned jurisdictional Range Officer. Intimation about cancellation of the invoice is merely procedural in nature and it is settled principle of law that substantive benefit cannot be denied merely on account of minor procedural lapse. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent was compelled to issue fresh invoices for clearance of the seized goods on payment of duty. In that circumstances, it is the duty of the appellant to ascertain whether on these 559 invoices which have been seized whether the said goods have been cleared from the factory of the respondent or not, which the appellant failed to do so. In the impugned order, the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has observed as under:- ........................ 7. As the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) passed the order after verifying all the issues regarding the clearance of the goods in question and payment of duty thereof and considering the Affidavits filed by the customers as well as transporters‟ gate passes etc., we hold that the respondent has paid duty twice for the same goods. 8. In that circumstances, we hold that the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly sanctioned the refund claim subject to verification of the issue of bar of unjust enrichment by the adjudicating authority." 12. Amongst other arguments, the respondents have also pleaded that a substantial benefit ought not to be denied for procedural infarctions, particularly where it is established, that duty has been paid twi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
