2011 (8) TMI 927 - AT - Central Excise

Stay - revenue neutrality - adjustment of the excess duty stated to have been paid for the period January 2006 to March 2006 towards short payment for the period from April 2005 and December 2005. - dispute about non-applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment. - assessee contended that the excess duty paid by the appellant being entitled for availing the credit and the payment of duty is by one unit whereas the availment of the credit is by another unit of the same appellants, the entire process is actually revenue neutrality. - held that - merely because the assessee paid duty subsequent to the date even though the appellants are entitled for credit for such payment of duty that does not result in revenue neutrality. As such, payment of duty after the last due date for the same does not wipe out the liability to pay interest. Being so, unless it is shown that at the time of payment, the entire duty amount along with interest stood paid, the question of application of revenue neutrality cannot arise. In none of the decisions sought to be relied upon this aspect has been considered. Merely because the principle is stated to have been applicable that itself does not amount to laying down the law. - Appellant directed to pre-deposit 60%.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding adjustment of excess duty paid for a specific period.
2. Dispute concerning differential duty paid in excess for another period.
3. Argument about the principle of unjust enrichment and revenue neutrality.
4. Applicability of interest payment in case of late duty payment.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the adjustment of excess duty paid by the appellants for a specific period towards short payment for another period. The appeal arises from the order confirming duty demand for certain months, and the appellants seek to adjust the excess duty paid in subsequent periods. The lower appellate authority had dismissed the appeal, leading to the current dispute.

2. The second issue pertains to the differential duty paid in excess by the appellants for a different period. The appeal in this matter challenges the order confirming a significant duty demand along with interest. The contention is about adjusting the excess duty paid in certain months towards short-payment in subsequent periods.

3. The dispute also involves the principle of unjust enrichment and revenue neutrality. The appellants argue that since the excess duty paid is eligible for credit and the duty payment and credit availment involve different units of the same appellants, it results in revenue neutrality. They rely on various legal precedents to support their claim, emphasizing that the process does not lead to unjust enrichment.

4. An essential aspect of the judgment addresses the applicability of interest payment in cases of late duty payment. The tribunal emphasizes that mere subsequent payment of duty, even if credit is available, does not automatically result in revenue neutrality. The liability to pay interest accrues if duty remains unpaid beyond the due date, irrespective of the entitlement to credit for the duty paid.

In the detailed analysis, the tribunal scrutinizes the arguments presented by both parties, referencing relevant legal decisions to support their conclusions. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions, particularly regarding interest payment on delayed duty amounts. Ultimately, the tribunal directs the appellants to deposit a specific percentage of the demanded amount within a specified timeframe, highlighting the need for compliance with the legal obligations.