Clerical error in CENVAT account opening balance not lead to wrongful credit availment

The Member (Judicial) found that a clerical error in recording the opening balance of the CENVAT account did not lead to wrongful availment of credit. The correct balances were reflected in the ER-1 return, and the error was promptly rectified with supporting Chartered Accountant certification. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld, with the cross objection also disposed of.

---

---

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in recording opening balance in CENVAT account.
2. Demand of CENVAT credit raised due to journal voucher without documentary evidence.
3. Appeal against dropping of demand by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The case involved a discrepancy where the appellant mistakenly recorded a short amount as the opening balance in their CENVAT account in April 2010. Although the error was corrected through a journal voucher, a demand for CENVAT credit was raised during an audit due to the lack of documentary evidence for the correction. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped it after considering the explanation and supporting Chartered Accountant certificate provided by the respondent.

2. The Revenue filed an appeal, arguing that the respondent did not submit any documentary evidence before the Adjudicating Authority to support the correction made through the journal voucher. The Additional Commissioner contended that only a Chartered Accountant certificate was submitted for the explanation of the discrepancy in the closing and opening balances, but no evidence was provided for the difference amount, leading to a request for setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

3. The respondent, represented by their counsel, argued that there was no wrongful availment of CENVAT credit, as the correct closing balance was recorded on 31st March and a clerical error led to the short opening balance on 1st April, which was rectified through the journal voucher. The respondent maintained that this was a case of a clerical error that was promptly corrected, with no excess availment of credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was supported as being in line with the facts presented.

4. Upon review, the Member (Judicial) found that the closing balance of the CENVAT account on 31st March was accurate and correctly carried forward to the opening balance on 1st April. The discrepancy arose due to a clerical error in recording the opening balance in April 2010, which did not affect the ER-1 return where the correct balances were reflected. The judgment emphasized that this was not a case of wrongful or excess availment of credit, but a mere clerical error that was rectified promptly. The Chartered Accountant's certification further supported the correction made. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld, with the cross objection also disposed of.

---