Suo motu credit for mistaken excise debit allowed, but penalty upheld for premature capital goods credit

A mistaken excess debit in RG-23A Part II was held not to be a refund claim governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so the assessee could restore the amount by taking suo motu credit in its records. Penalty was also considered for credit taken on capital goods before their actual receipt in the factory; that procedural lapse justified a penalty despite the absence of substantive benefit. The result was partial relief: the credit issue was allowed in favour of the assessee, while the penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessee could take suo motu credit of an amount earlier debited in RG-23A Part II on the ground that the debit was made by mistake and was not hit by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; and (ii) whether penalty was sustainable for taking credit on capital goods before their receipt in the factory.

Issue (i): whether the assessee could take suo motu credit of an amount earlier debited in RG-23A Part II on the ground that the debit was made by mistake and was not hit by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The amount had been debited in excess by inadvertent mistake and was not a refund claim arising from payment of duty in the ordinary course. Following the principle that a mistaken deposit with the Government is not governed by the refund machinery under Section 11B, the assessee was entitled to restore the amount by taking credit in its records.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee; suo motu credit of the excess amount debited was permissible and was not barred by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (ii): whether penalty was sustainable for taking credit on capital goods before their receipt in the factory.

Analysis: Credit was taken on capital goods without their actual receipt in the factory, which amounted to a procedural lapse. Even though no substantive benefit was intended, the act attracted penalty for improper availment of credit.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the assessee; penalty of Rs. 5,000 was upheld for availing credit on capital goods without receipt.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the question of suo motu credit but failed on the penalty issue, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A mistaken excess debit not constituting a refund claim under the excise refund provision may be corrected by suo motu credit, but credit taken without actual receipt of capital goods remains punishable as a procedural infraction.

---