Tribunal allows amendment in registration post proprietor's demise, deems demand unjustified due to clerical errors.

The tribunal allowed the amendment in central excise registration following the proprietor's demise, recognizing the change in ownership. The demand raised due to clerical errors in filing returns was deemed unjustified as actual payments were evidenced through e-receipt challans. Failure to file revised returns within the specified timeframe was not considered substantial. The tribunal criticized the lower authorities for disregarding payment evidence and solely relying on ER-1 entries, remanding the case for a fresh decision with a reconciliation of figures and fair consideration of all relevant documents.

---

---

Issues:
1. Amendment in central excise registration after the demise of the proprietor.
2. Demand raised based on clerical error in filing returns.
3. Failure to file revised returns within the specified time frame.
4. Discrepancy in the figures of Account Current and payment evidence.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of amendment in central excise registration following the death of the proprietor. The wife of the deceased proprietor filed miscellaneous applications seeking approval for the amendment, supported by a death certificate and registration certificate. The tribunal allowed the applications, acknowledging the change in ownership. Subsequently, the stay applications were considered, leading to the disposal of both appeals.

2. The next issue pertains to the demand raised due to clerical errors in filing returns. The advocate argued that the discrepancies in opening balances were inadvertent clerical mistakes made by the clerk during electronic filing. The appellants provided evidence of payment through e-receipt challans, demonstrating that the amount was deposited in the current account. The tribunal found that the demand was solely based on figures from the Account Current in the ER-1 returns, disregarding the actual payments made by the appellants. The tribunal concluded that the demand was unjustified and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, instructing a reconciliation of figures and consideration of amended returns.

3. The issue of failing to file revised returns within the prescribed timeframe was raised by the respondent. The respondent contended that corrections should have been made within 90 days for e-filed returns, which the appellants allegedly failed to comply with. However, the tribunal did not find this argument substantial in light of the overall case and evidence presented.

4. Lastly, the discrepancy between the figures in the Account Current and the lack of payment evidence was discussed. The tribunal noted that the appellants had indeed made the payments, as evidenced by the e-receipt challans, and that the figures in the accounts showed sufficient balances during the relevant period. The tribunal criticized the lower authorities for not adequately considering the payment proof and relying solely on the ER-1 entries to confirm the demand. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the case for a thorough review, reconciliation of figures, and a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case with all relevant documents.

---