Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Aeroto Boldrocchi India P Ltd vs Cce, Chennai Iv on 2 November, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/41184/2013
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.154/2013(M-IV) dated 26.3.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
M/s. Aeroto Boldrocchi India P Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Chennai IV Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Ramachandran, Consultant for the Appellant Ms. P. Hemavathy, Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 25.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 02.11.2017 Final Order No. 42564 / 2017 As per the facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of centrifugal fans and its spares which were being cleared by them on payment of duty, after availing the CENVAT credit of duty paid on the raw materials. It so happened that the appellant undertook certain trading transactions on electric motors and spares and inadvertently paid duty the duty of Rs.5,47,960/- by deducting the same in their RG23A Part II Register by way of debit entry dated 31.3.2008. On realizing the said mistake, they subsequently corrected the entries and made credit entry on 31.5.2009 in their CENVAT register. The said reversal of entry was brought to the notice of the Revenue in their ER-I returns for May 2009. Vide their letter dated 9.6.2009, the said fact was also brought to the notice of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner.
2. In the above scenario, they were issued a show cause notice dated 24.2.2010 proposing to disallow the recredit along with interest and imposition of penalties. The same culminated into an order passed by the original authority confirming the proposal made in the show cause notice. Appeal there against did not succeed before Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal.
3. The main contention for rejection of the assessees appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) is that they were not within the jurisdiction to make suo moto entry of the wrongly paid duty. I note that in the ordinary course, the appellant should have taken the permission of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner before reversing the entry or should have filed a refund claim, but appreciating that the said duty was admittedly wrongly paid and there is no dispute about the same, the recredit of the debit amounts to correction of the entries only. The same has been held in so many decisions of the Tribunal which stand relied upon by the appellant and stand detailed below:-
a. Union of India Vs. Annapurna Malleables Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (271) ELT 349 (Chat.) b. Swastic Sanitarywares Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2012-TIOL-757-HC-AHM-Cx c. ICMC Corporation Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2014 (302) ELT 45 (Mad.) d. M/s. Krishnav Engg. Ltd. Vs. CESTAT 2016-TIOL-939-HC-ALL-CX e. Parijat Constructions Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik 2017-TIOL-2170-HC-MUM-ST f. Vishakapatnam Steel Plant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2002 (149) ELT 708 g. Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd.. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2005 (190) ELT 406 h. Srinivasa Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore 2006 (193) ELT 419 i. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. Magnum Iron & Steel Ltd. 2009 (247) ELT 347 j. Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara I 2013 (291) ELT 70 k. JSW Ispat Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad - 2017-TIOL-290-CESTAT-MUM
4. Inasmuch as the issue relates only to correcting the entries in RG23A Part II, I am of the view that the technical objection raised by the Revenue that they should have filed a refund claim would not sustain in the absence of any finding that such debit entry was otherwise not required to be made by the appellant.
5. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounced in open court on 2.11.2017) (ARCHANA WADHWA) Member (Judicial) Rex 4