Facts
The appellant has paid duty on export of all the goods at the time of clearance. Subsequently, while making the monthly payment of duty inadvertently they also included the duty paid on export in their monthly dues of the duty and same was paid.
Thus, they have paid the same duty twice. When it was detected the appellant have taken the suo-moto credit in their Cenvat account. During the audit it was objected that the appellant should not have taken the suo-moto re-credit, whereas they should have applied for refund, on this the appellant reversed the re-credit.
However, the show cause notice was issued whereby, it was proposed to demand the amount of suo-moto re-credit and also to appropriate the same amount, which was reversed by the appellant on the direction of audit officers.
Submissions
S. Suriyanarayanan, Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that once the appellant had reversed the credit of duty, which was paid second time no show cause notice should have been issued and case could have been closed after reversal on the direction of the audit.
He submitted that by adjudicating the show cause notice and Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the duty paid twice, which is absolutely incorrect. Under any circumstances on the clearance of goods duty cannot be demanded twice
Decision
The division bench of Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) And C L Mahar Member (Technical) observed that there is no dispute that on one clearance duty was paid twice, therefore the duty paid second time needs to be restored to the appellant as credit, the appellant had taken suo-moto credit. If no discrepancy is found as regard the second time payment of duty and suo-moto re-credit thereof then no objection could have been raised by the department.
The bench found that the appellant being law abiding assessee even though suo-moto credit was available to them, they had reversed the same on pointing out by the audit officers. Thereafter, the department could have regularized by allowing the re-credit but instead the appellant were issued the show cause notice for demand of re-credit made by the appellant suo moto despite the fact that they had already reversed the same.
The Tribunal held that the appellant is correctly entitled for the re-credit and the appellant has legal right to re-credit the amount of Rs. 1 crore, in their Cenvat Account.
Case title: Bayer Vapi Pvt Ltd v/s C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman
Citation: Excise Appeal No. 11435 of 2014- DB
