TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee code number and payment made thereunder and authorities refusal to treat the same to have been paid under correct assessee code, which issue is covered by at least two judgments of the High Courts namely High Court of Gujarat in case of Devang Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India, reported in 2016(4) S.T.R. 418 (Guj.) and High Court of Jharkhand in case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Union of India, reported in 2016(45) S.T.R. 508 (Jhar.). Hence, the matter was found to be in narrow compass. Therefore, same was taken up for final hearing with the consent of counsels for the parties. 3. Hence, Rule. Ms. Avani Mehta, learned ASG waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith. 4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee code, which resulted into issuance of communications and orders, which have been impugned in this petition. 5. The facts, in brief, as could be gathered from the memo of petition, deserve to be set out as under: 5.1 The petitioner have been allotted PAN based Central Excise Registration / Assessee Code No. AAACA9820DXM001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code no. 001' for short) on an application dated 14.12.1999 by the petitioners for manufacturing of centrifugal pumps and other related products. The petitioner surrendered the Registration Code No. 001 as their turn over was below the exemption limit as provided under notification No. 8/2001 -CE, dated 1.3.2001 as amended. The Union of India imposed excise duty on Centri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted to condone the error committed by the petitioner and also drew the attention of judgment delivered in the matter of Devang Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and requested to follow the same as issue involved in the same matter was also similar to the petitioner. The petitioner has also renewed its request vide letter dated 7th April, 2016, 11th August, 2016 and 12th August, 2016. 5.5 The respondent no. 5 issued default notice dated 10.10.2016 and conveyed that the duties paid in wrong assessee code cannot be treated as payment made by the petitioner for the month of April - June, 2015 and directed the petitioner to make payment along with applicable interest and penalty @1% per day as provided under Central Excise Rules, 2002. 5.6 The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on 4.7.2015, the incorrect code i.e. Code no. 001 was mentioned, which was in fact appreciate and understood by the authority, hence the authority sent communication dated 16th March, 2016, which is reproduced at page-102. Relevant paragraphs were emphasized and relying upon it, it is submitted that there was some ambiguity in mentioning the Code but the fact remains that the payment of due payable, was in fact made, under wrong assessee code. The counsel for the petitioners placed heavy reliance upon that communication and contended that there exists a clear understanding on the part of the authorities that there was a mistake in mentioning the assessee code as there was discrepancy in the code under which challan and payment was made an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and for the purpose of filing ER-3 return and for the purpose of payment of duty. It is submitted that in discharge of duty liability, the petitioners were using assessee code no. AAACA9820DXM002 for the purpose of payment of duty and filing of ER-3 return wherein for the period of quarter ending June 2015, ER-3 return was showing discharge of duty liability to the tune of Rs. 17036 from the CENVAT credit account. It is submitted that there was error / discrepancy reflected in the system of submitting / filing of the return on-line to the department with regard to the sum of 5,10,573/- from the account current mentioning GAR-7 Challan No. 0220411290620/500065 dated 29.6.2015. Therefore, in E-return there was error showing that challan numb....