Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, setting aside interest and penalty for depositing duty against incorrect registration number.

The Tribunal set aside the imposition of interest and penalty on the appellant for depositing Central Excise duty against the old registration number. Citing legal precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal held that the error in depositing the duty against the incorrect registration number was rectifiable and should not result in punitive consequences. As the duty was duly deposited with the Revenue, the Tribunal deemed the imposition of interest and penalty unjustifiable, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Interest quantification and imposition of penalty on appellant for depositing Central Excise duty against the old registration number.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of 'Plastic Tubes,' surrendered its registration in May 2015 and deposited Central Excise duty electronically for the months of May and October 2015. However, due to an error where the old registration number was not deleted from the system, the payments were made against the old registration number instead of the correct one.

2. Despite the appellant's request to adjust the deposits made against the old registration number, the Central Excise Authorities insisted on a fresh deposit with the correct registration number. The appellant complied and sought a refund for the wrongly deposited duty.

3. The main challenge in the appeal pertains to the interest quantification and imposition of penalty. It is undisputed that the duty in question was duly deposited by the appellant, albeit against the incorrect registration number. The appellant argued that this was a rectifiable mistake, and various legal precedents were cited to support the contention that such errors should not lead to interest or penalty imposition.

4. The judgment referred to a decision by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Devang Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, where it was held that a mere error in mentioning the wrong code should not result in severe consequences such as non-recognition of the entire payment as valid. This principle was further upheld in the case of Auro Pumps Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India by the same High Court.

5. Despite the appellant citing various other decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the issue was no longer open to debate, especially considering that the dues were already deposited with the Revenue. Consequently, the confirmation of interest and penalty on the appellant was deemed unjustifiable, leading to the setting aside of the same and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

---