CESTAT directs excise department to re-consider refund claim
The tribunal ruled that the authorities had accepted the appellant’s plea about a clerical error in the amount
CESTAT directs excise department to re-consider refund claim
The tribunal ruled that the authorities had accepted the appellant's plea about a clerical error in the amount
The Delhi Bench of the Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has provided succor to Tata Consumer Products Limited. It has directed the Central Excise department to re-consider the refund claim of the Company.
The issue arose when the assistant commissioner mentioned that the appellant was eligible for a refund of Rs.13,95,891, but sanctioned only Rs.10,60,268, thereby, rejecting the balance amount of Rs.3,51,648.
Meanwhile, the appellant argued before the concerned authorities that it had, inadvertently, mentioned the balance Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) credit refund claim as Rs.10,60,268 instead of Rs.14,50,277. But, finding no relief from the authorities, it approached CESTAT.
The judicial member P Dinesha held that even though the appellate authority accepted that it happened due to a clerical error, it did not consider it, as the matter was not brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority (AA).
The tribunal stated, "It is not the case that the error was not inadvertent; the rejection is for a different reason. Hence, it is clear that the inadvertent error is bona fide and the First Appellate Authority should have called a report from the adjudicating authority and passed the orders as per the law."
The judicial member added, "It would meet the ends of justice if the matter is sent back to the file of the adjudicating authority. He shall verify the inadvertent error, which is not disbelieved by the First Appellate Authority, who shall also verify the closing balance in the CENVAT credit."
Setting aside the impugned order, the tribunal said, "The appeal is allowed by way of remand. The adjudicating authority shall pass a speaking order as per my observations, preferably within three months, considering the fact that the issue pertains to April-June 2015. While passing a speaking order as per my directions, the adjudicating authority shall give sufficient/reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard."