TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second time - this allegation by the department is erroneous for the reason that for the second time, the appellants have taken the credit only because they had made a wrong book entry at the initial stage. This does not amount to availing credit for second time. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (7) TMI 223 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE] had earlier held that the mistake of debiting the amount in the CENVAT credit can be corrected by the assessee later. The allegations in the show cause notice cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/41589/2018 - 42584/2018 - Dated:- 11-10-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Ms. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than submitted that the appellant has been regularly discharging the excise duty at applicable rates and also filing returns for the same. During the months of July 2012 and November 2012, the appellant inadvertently mentioned higher amount of ₹ 11,84,033/- as CENVAT credit utilizing for paying excise duty and disclosing in their ER-1 returns, though they had adjusted only lesser amount for payment of duty. She explained the calculation / error as given in the Table below: S. No. Particulars Amount (July 2012) Amount (November 2012) 1. Excise duty liability (A) 1,62,96,444 1,42,32,775 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Central Excise 2008 (229) ELT 364 (Tri. LB). That the said Larger Bench decision was per incuriam as the Hon ble Karnataka High Court by an earlier decision in the case of Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (206) ELT 90 (Kar.) had already held that the mistake in excess duty by adjusting in CENVAT credit can be corrected by suo moto credit by the assessee. She also relied upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of ICMC Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2014 (302) ELT 45 (Mad.) and argued that suo moto credit involves only an account entry reversal and there being no outflow of funds, it is not required to file refund claim. 3. The ld. AR Shri R.Subramaniam supported the findings in the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier held that the mistake of debiting the amount in the CENVAT credit can be corrected by the assessee later. Further, the jurisdictional High court in the case of ICMC Corporation Ltd. (supra) had occasion to analyse the very same and has held as under:- 13. We do not subscribe to the view expressed by the Revenue. Admittedly, the assessee originally availed the Cenvat credit on Service Tax for discharging its liability. However, for sound reasons, it reversed the credit. Strictly speaking, in this process, there is only an account entry reversal and factually there is no outflow of funds from the assessee to result in filing application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 claiming refund of duty. The contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
