9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the respective jurisdictional central excise authorities and discharged Central Excise Duty and filed returns with the respective authorities. With effect from November, 2015, they took centralized registration and started filing a single consolidated monthly ER-1 return after obtaining the data from all of their 21 area offices / washeries. 2. The Appellant issues invoices which contain two different dates viz. loading date - on which the coal is cleared; and invoicing date - on which the invoice in respect of the coal is ultimately issued. Excise Duty is discharged by the Appellant on the basis of the loading date. 2.1. During the period November, 2015 to December, 2015, certain area offices of the Appellant provided details of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted. The Appellant states that they had submitted the details of errors in ER-1 returns filled and details of correct figures that should have been considered while verifying the correctness of total duty actually payable and refund claimed, vide their letter dated 18.02.2016 and have also submitted the attested copies of invoices issued in relation to clearances made during the period in dispute vide letter dated 03.12.2016; these evidences submitted by them vide letter dated 18.02.2016 clearly support the correct duty payable by them for the period under dispute. On perusal of the Statements of excise duty actually payable, as submitted by them vide their letter dated 18.02.2016, with the copy of invoices as submitted vide letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s duty cannot be denied merely for the reason that the provisional assessment has not been followed by the Appellant. 6.3. The Appellant submits that they have submitted the details of excise duty paid, the details of excise duty that was payable, copies of invoices that were issued in relation to clearances made during the period in dispute, copy of ER-1 returns and CA Certificate certifying that they have paid excess excise duty of Rs. 25,47,909/-; on correlating all the aforesaid documents, the actual duty payable for the months of November 2015 and December 2015 can be arrived at. Thus, it is contended by the Appellant that without acknowledging the documents submitted by the appellant as mentioned above, the Ld. Assistant Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vise the returns to rectify the mistakes, they have submitted the details manually vide letter dated 18.02.2016. The Appellant submits that the Ld. Assistant Commissioner has erred while holding the details submitted by the appellant vide the said letter dated 18.02.2016 to be invalid. It is also their contention that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has also merely upheld the findings of the adjudicating authority without giving any findings on the facts of the case. Accordingly, the Appellant submits that the revised details submitted by the Appellant manually can be considered to arrive at the actual duty payable and paid by them during the relevant period. 7. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accounts of 2015-16. However, the lower authorities have simply brushed aside the accounting entries available in the Annual Accounts for the year 2015-16 without giving any valid finding as to why they are not acceptable. The ld. adjudicating authority has made the observation that the said entries were made just for accounting purpose without ascertaining proper duty liability required to be paid by them. I find that the said observation shows complete non-application of mind inasmuch as the Appellant is a PSU and the accounts are duly audited and the bona fide of the entries made therein cannot be doubted. Moreover, the Appellant has also submitted a Chartered Accountant's certificate showing excess payment of duty the correctness of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r there was an excess payment as claimed by the Appellant. Since, none of the information submitted by the Appellant regarding excess payment was disputed and there is no finding regarding the correctness of these statements, I hold that the documents submitted by the Appellant along with the Chartered Accountant submitted by them establishes that there was an excess payment of duty by the Appellant during the months of November 2015 and December 2015. 9.3. Regarding the issue of 'unjust enrichment', I find that the ld. adjudicating authority has made the following observation in the Order-in-Original: - "4.1. ..... .... These advances are not equivalent to "unspent advance deposits lying in balance in PLA " as such it cannot be kept o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
