2015 (2) TMI 699 - AT - Central Excise

Adjustment of duty deposited before adjudication with the demand confirmed in the order in original - Commissioner (Appeals) denied such adjustment / appropriation - Held that - If an assessee has admitted his duty liability and has deposited the amount after issuance of show cause notice, the same has to be treated as deposit towards confirmed demand of duty. We really fail to understand and appreciate the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no provision under Central Excise law to make payment of duty by way of adjustment. If the duty has been deposited by an assessee even before adjudication, such deposits have to be held as deposit of the demands confirmed in the adjudication order. Accordingly, we direct the lower authority to verify the fact of duty deposits made by the appellant and treat the same towards confirmed duty in the present impugned order - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Confirmation of demand against M/s. Alstom Ltd.
2. Benefit of exemption Notification No.108/95-CE.
3. Penalty imposed on M/s. Alstom Ltd. and M/s. Jyoti Structural Ltd.
4. Adjustment of differential duty deposits.
5. Demand of Rs. 2,10,444/- in respect of supply not made to M/s. Tata Projects Ltd.
6. Imposition of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to three appeals arising from the same impugned order confirming the demand against M/s. Alstom Ltd. within the limitation period and setting aside the demand falling outside the limitation period. The penalty imposed on M/s. Alstom Ltd. and M/s. Jyoti Structural Ltd. was also set aside, leading to the filing of two appeals by the Revenue.

2. The issue revolves around M/s. Alstom Ltd. supplying goods to M/s. Jyoti Structural Ltd. under the benefit of exemption Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.95, which exempted goods supplied to projects funded by International Organizations. However, as M/s. Jyoti Structural was funded by the Japan Bank of International Corporation, not considered an international organization under the relevant Act, the benefit was deemed inadmissible to the appellant.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand within the limitation period but set aside the penalty imposed on both M/s. Alstom Ltd. and M/s. Jyoti Structural Ltd., a decision contested by the Revenue in their appeals.

4. The appellant contended that the duty confirmed within the limitation period was not disputed. However, they argued that the deposits made after the issuance of the show cause notice were not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant claimed that the deposits should be considered as payments towards the confirmed duty demand.

5. The appellant raised concerns regarding a demand of Rs. 2,10,444/- related to a supply not made to M/s. Tata Projects Ltd., another project funded by the Japan Bank of International Corporation. The appellant argued that this demand was confirmed without addressing their contentions.

6. The judgment also addresses the imposition of penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals), with the Revenue's appeal focusing on this aspect. The Revenue's appeal was rejected as they did not challenge the dropping of the demand on the grounds of limitation, and the Tribunal found the non-imposition of penalties appropriate based on various Tribunal decisions and a reference to the High Court judgment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of all three appeals by directing the lower authority to verify duty deposits made by the appellant and treat them towards the confirmed duty, while also instructing a reconsideration of the demand related to the supply not made to M/s. Tata Projects Ltd. The Revenue's appeal was rejected based on the appropriateness of the non-imposition of penalties and the Tribunal's findings on penalty issues in previous decisions.