9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the said order, the Ld. Commissioner has remanded the matter to the original authority for verification purpose. Cross objection bearing no. 75419/2019 has been filed by the assessee, M/s Tide Water Oil Co. (India) Ltd. in the aforesaid departmental appeal. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing lubricants, oil and allied products on which central excise duty is being paid. They are availing the benefits of CENVAT Credit as per the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In the ER-1 returns filed during the period 2010-11, the amount of CENVAT credit disclosed therein did not match with the credit amount disclosed in ER- 4 annual return. The said ER is an annual financial statement, req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel appearing for the assessee submitted that there was no difference in the CENVAT credit amount. He stated that due to system error, in the ER-4 return filed by the assessee electronically, there appeared some erroneous entries. Copy of the ER-4 return is attached in the Appeal Paper Book. He submitted that an alphabet 'E' with decimal appeared at multiple places which were not entered by the assessee. He submitted that the said system error is clearly evident from the ER-4 and thus the same could not be relied upon to raise demand of irregular credit. He also submitted that ER-1 return is the statutory document which reflects the value of CENVAT Credit taken and utilized for a particular period, which is backed with CENVAT Credit registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be served if the matter is remanded back. He drew my attention to the specific findings made by the Ld. Commissioner in page 7 of the impugned order wherein he has observed that the Credit Register submitted by the assessee is in line with the ER-4 returns filed with the department. He also drew the attention of the Bench to the reply to the Show Cause Notice submitted by the assessee at the adjudication stage wherein they relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chandigarh Network System Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, Chandigarh-II 2016 (44) STR 603 (Tri-Chan.), wherein the Tribunal held that the only document to check whether the assessee has availed credit wrongly or not is CENVAT Credit Account and not the returns filed although the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the adjudication stage which corresponds to the ER- 1 return and therefore, the Credit figures disclosed in the said ER-1 return have to be accepted as sacrosanct without any demur. I agree with the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee that the Credit amount accounted in the CENVAT Credit Register have to be considered as has been held in the decision of this Tribunal in Chandigarh Network System Pvt Ltd (Supra). In view of the same, I do not find any reason to saddle the assessee with the demand of CENVAT Credit, as has been rightly held by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order by setting aside the duty demand. In so far as the issue whether the matter should be remanded back to the original aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
