M/S. Jericho Detergents Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ...

(ARISING OUT OF ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.102/GHY/CE(A)/GHY/2013 DATED 30.12.2013 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX(APPEALS), GUWAHATI)

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE OF

DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not ?

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Authorities ?

M/S. JERICHO DETERGENTS PVT. LTD.

APPLICANT/APPELLANT VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, GUWAHATI ...RESPONDENT

APPEARANCE:

SHRI ARIJIT CHAKRRABORTY. ADV. ASSISTED BY SHRI ABHIJIT CHAKRABORTY, ADV. FOR THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT;

SHRI K. CHOWDHURI, A.R. (SUPDT.) FOR THE REVENUE.

CORAM:

DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date of Hearing & Decision:20.02.2015

ORDER NO.FO/A/75105/2015

This Application is filed seeking waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.3,26,796/-.

2. At the outset, ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that the present dispute on the refunded amount has its origin to the area-based exemption Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.99. He submits that the Applicant are entitled to refund of the duty which was allowed to them periodically. He also submits that they had filed a refund application on 05.04.2011 seeking refund of Rs.11,07,514/-. The ld. Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the said amount. There was an arithmetical error in addition of the amount shown in the table mentioned in the said Order. It is his submission that in the said table, the total refund sanctioned was shown as Rs.92,92,076/-, whereas the correct figure ought to have been Rs.89,65,280/-, resulting into short refund of Rs.3,26,796/-. Consequently, the Applicant brought the said mistake to the notice of the ld. Adjudicating Authority, vide its letter dated 07.09.2011. It is his submission that instead of issuing a corrigendum to the Order rectifying the said mistake, the ld. Adjudicating Authority has issued another Refund Order No.R-594/ACG/2011-12 dated 14.09.2011. Aggrieved by the said second Refund Order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the Revenues appeal on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the power to review its own order. Precisely, it is his submission that even though the second Order had given a different number, but in fact, it was a corrigendum to the earlier Order correcting the typographical/arithmetical error that had crept into the Order inadvertently.

3. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). However, he fairly accepts that there was an arithmetical error i.e., in writing the figures in the respective table, which ought to have been corrected by an addendum/corrigendum to the Order. Precisely, it is his submission that even though the second Order had given a different number, but in fact it was a corrigendum to the earlier Order correcting the typographical mistake in respect of arithmetical error. He has no objection in remanding the case to the ld. Adjudicating Authority for rectification/correction of the said mistake.

4. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that at this stage, the present Appeal itself could be disposed off. Accordingly, after waiving the requirement of predeposit, I take up the Appeal itself for disposal, with the consent of both sides.

5. I find that there is no dispute about the eligibility of the refund amount sanctioned/allowed to the Appellant. However, the dispute is the arithmetical mistake that had crept into the initial Order dated 25.08.2011, which was later corrected by another Order dated 14.09.2011. I find force in the submission of the ld. Advocate for the Appellant that the ld. Adjudicating Authority ought to have corrected the arithmetical mistake by way of issuing a corrigendum instead of passing a separate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to remit the case to the ld. Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue afresh, taking into consideration all aspects of the case. In the result, the impugned Order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the ld. Adjudicating Authority, with the consent of both sides, for deciding the issue afresh, on merit. At this stage, ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that a time-frame be fixed, as the issue is only of correction of the typographical error. The ld. AR for the Revenue has no objection. In the result, the ld. Adjudicating Authority, as far as practicable, should dispose of the matter within a period of two months from the date of communication of the Order. The Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay Petition disposed of.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)

SD/-03.03.2015 (D.M.MISRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

DUTTA/

4 E/A/75250/2014

4