Appeal upheld due to calculation error in duty exemption claim under Notification No. 63/95 CE.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of duty exemption claim under Notification No. 63/95 CE due to a calculation error in duty rate computation. The Tribunal held that the appeal was not time-barred as it was filed against the refusal to correct the mistake by the Department. The Department's refusal to rectify the acknowledged error was deemed unsustainable, and the Tribunal emphasized the obligation to rectify such mistakes in duty calculations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Time-barred appeal against rejection of duty exemption claim under Notification No. 63/95 CE dated 16.03.1995 due to calculation error in duty rate computation for excisable goods supplied to HAL.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Time-barred Appeal
The appeal was directed against the rejection of the appellant's claim for duty exemption under Notification No. 63/95 CE dated 16.03.1995. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal as time-barred, citing the date of the original impugned order as 24.03.2014. However, the appellant contended that the appeal was filed against the letter dated 25.04.2017, which refused to correct the calculation error made by the Department. The Tribunal found that the rejection on the grounds of being time-barred was erroneous as the appellant had timely appealed against the refusal to correct the mistake by the Department.

Issue 2: Calculation Error in Duty Computation
The appellant had manufactured and supplied excisable goods to HAL under duty exemption claimed under Notification No. 63/95 CE dated 16.03.1995. However, a calculation error was identified in the duty computation, where the Department had erroneously applied a duty rate of 12.36% instead of the correct rate of 10.30% for the period from 01.01.2012 to 16.03.2012. Despite the appellant pointing out this error at various stages, the Department admitted the mistake but refused to correct it, citing a lack of provision in law. The Tribunal held that once the Department had acknowledged the calculation error, it was obligated to rectify it. The refusal to correct the mistake was deemed untenable under the law.

Final Decision:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellant. The Department's refusal to rectify the calculation error in duty computation, despite admitting to the mistake, was found to be unsustainable. The rejection of the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred was deemed incorrect, as the appeal was timely filed against the refusal to correct the error by the Department. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the Department's duty to rectify acknowledged mistakes in duty calculations.

---