Clerical error in CENVAT debit treated as excess deposit, not duty, so refund limitation did not bar the claim.

An excess debit in the PLA/CENVAT account made by clerical or arithmetical mistake was treated as an excess deposit, not as duty, because it was not reflected as duty in the invoices and was promptly intimated to the department for rectification. On that basis, the earlier intimation was treated as the refund claim, the limitation under Section 11B was held inapplicable in the same manner, and the time-bar objection failed. Refund of the amount paid by mistake was therefore maintainable and allowable to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the excess amount debited in the PLA/CENVAT account due to a clerical or arithmetical mistake was duty so as to attract the limitation under Section 11B, and whether refund of such amount was payable.

Analysis: The excess debit was made by mistake and was promptly brought to the notice of the department with a request to rectify the error. The amount did not figure in the invoices as duty and was treated as an excess deposit rather than duty payment. In such circumstances, the earlier intimation to the department could be treated as the claim for refund, and the plea of time bar was not sustainable. The denial of refund for an amount paid due to a clerical error was found to be unjust.

Conclusion: The excess amount was not to be treated as duty for the purpose of limitation, and the refund claim was held to be maintainable and allowable in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An amount debited in excess due to a clerical or arithmetical mistake, which is not shown as duty in the invoices, is a deposit and not duty, so the limitation for refund under Section 11B does not apply in the same manner.

---