CESTAT, Mumbai Bench
Tej Control Systems (P.) Ltd.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane
ORDER NO. S/108/2012/SMB/C-IV
APPLICATION NO. E/S/2104/2010
APPEAL NO. E/1946/2010
MARCH 22, 2012
1. The appeal and stay application are directed against order-in-appeal No.SB(113)/113 /Th-I/2010 dated 09/08/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I.
2. The facts arising for consideration in this are as follows:-
2.1 The appellant, M/s. Tej Control Systems Pvt. Ltd. Thane, are manufacturers of goods falling under chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have two registrations, one under the Central Excise Act and other under the Finance Act, 1994 for the purpose of service tax. The appellant had availed Cenvat credit of service tax on CHA services. The department was of the view that they are not entitled for the same. The appellant accordingly reversed the credit taken along with interest thereon and also paid 25% of the amount as penalty, even before passing of the adjudication order. Subsequently, an adjudication order was passed vide order dated 31/08/2009 wherein the above demands were confirmed and the amount paid by the appellant was appropriated. However, while making the above payments, the appellant had quoted the service tax registration number in the concerned challans instead of the excise registration number. Therefore, the appellant was directed to pay the amount once again. The appellant went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order dismissed their appeal. Hence, the appellants are before me.
3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that there is no dispute about the fact that they made the payments even before the issuance of the adjudication order. The only mistake committed by them was that instead of quoting excise registration number they had quoted service tax registration number in the payment challans. There is no dispute of the fact that the Government has received money whatever is due from them. Therefore, the question of asking them to pay the amount again is not sustainable in law.
4. The Ld. AR appearing for Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
6. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after granting stay against recovery of dues adjudged, I take up the appeal for consideration and disposal.
7. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The issue is by quoting the service tax registration number in the payment challan, has the appellant committed a irreparable mistake or has the department not received the amount which they demanded. Inasmuch as the department has received the amount due from the appellant quoting of wrong registration number in the concerned challans is only a technical error which can be rectified at the department’s end itself. Such demand by the department is perverse and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, I allow the appeal.