JERICHO DETERGENTS PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
LAWS(CE)-2015-2-26
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 20,2015

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (J) - (1.)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 Revenue s 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.
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.

(3.)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.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.