Appeal allowed, order set aside, matter remanded for fresh decision. Excess amount deemed clerical error.

The appeal was allowed by the Member (Judicial), setting aside the order and remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision. The appellant's argument that the excess amount debited was not duty but a clerical error was accepted. The Authority was directed to review the supporting documents provided by the appellant and any fresh evidence, emphasizing the need for a thorough assessment distinguishing between clerical mistakes and duty payments.

---

---

Issues:
1. Justification of taking credit of excess amount debited in ER-1 Return.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Tax (Appeals), Raigad regarding the appellant's suo moto credit of an excess amount debited while filing the ER-1 Return. The appellant had mistakenly debited Rs. 6,38,824 instead of Rs. 62,231 for November 2015, resulting in an excess payment of Rs. 5,76,503. The appellant informed the Range Superintendent of the error and requested corrections, but since revision of returns was not allowed during that period, they took credit of the excess amount for the subsequent month. The Range Superintendent directed them to reverse the credit, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent demand confirmation with interest and penalty by the Adjudicating Authority, upheld by the Commissioner.

The appellant argued that the excess amount was not duty and thus filing a refund claim was unnecessary. They claimed to have submitted supporting letters to the authorities, which were allegedly not considered. The appellant contended that the excess debit was a clerical error and not duty, emphasizing that the documents supporting their claim were not reviewed by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Member (Judicial) found merit in the appellant's argument, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision. The Authority was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the appellant, consider the submitted documents, and review any fresh evidence as per law.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, with the Member (Judicial) emphasizing the need for a fresh assessment considering the appellant's arguments and supporting documents. The decision highlighted the distinction between an arithmetical/clerical mistake and a duty payment, indicating that the excess amount was a deposit and not a duty liability.

---