Tribunal rules in favor of Appellant, citing legal precedents and setting aside payment demand

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, holding that the inadvertent error in mentioning the wrong code number for payment did not constitute non-payment. Citing legal precedents and the invalidity of Rule 8(3A), the Tribunal set aside the demand for payment again and provided consequential reliefs to the Appellant.

---

---

Issues involved:
The main issue in this case is whether the payment made mentioning the wrong assessee code number in the Central Excise account is considered as a valid payment.

Comprehensive Details:
The Appellant had three units engaged in manufacturing electrical fans. In February 2010, they made a payment of Rs.58,40,599, but mistakenly mentioned the code number of the Hyderabad unit instead of the Kolkata unit in the payment documents. The mistake was later rectified by the Appellant themselves. However, the Department asked the Appellants to make the payment again, which they did. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued for the realization of the amount paid from the CENVAT Credit account. The Ld. Commissioner considered the initial payment as non-payment and confirmed the demand, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant's inadvertent error in mentioning the wrong code number did not amount to non-payment. Referring to a Board's Circular and a previous Tribunal decision, it was established that making a payment with the wrong code number should not result in the demand for payment again. The Tribunal also cited a judgment by the Calcutta High Court which declared Rule 8(3A) as invalid, emphasizing that the Revenue cannot take a different stand contrary to such judgments. Additionally, the Gujarat High Court had declared the words "without utilizing CENVAT Credit" under Rule 8(3A) as ultra vires, allowing the discharge of duty by utilizing CENVAT Credit, as done by the Appellant in this case.

Based on the legal precedents and the invalidity of Rule 8(3A), the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and providing consequential reliefs to the Appellant.

---