9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1242 - AT - Central ExciseEvasion of duty - Clearance of goods to sister concern - Duty paid under protest - Unjust enrichment - Adjustment of excess duty - Held that - it is a case of inter-unit transfer of the goods of the appellant s own company. In some cases, the appellant paid excess duty and there was short payment of duty of the amount of CAS-4. The Tribunal in the case of M/s Devi Thread Processors Pvt. Ltd. (2015 (3) TMI 429 - CESTAT CHENNAI) following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune 2004 (7) TMI 145 - CESTAT, MUMBAI held that as there was no sale of the goods involved and the appellant cleared the goods to the raw material supplier on job work basis on conversion charges, it was directed adjustment of excess/short payment of duty made by the appellant. The case of Kalyani Ferrous Industries (2005 (3) TMI 570 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) would not be applicable in this case, as there was sale of goods - Adjudicating Authority to adjust the excess payment of duty against the short payment of duty and thereafter, the refund/demand of duty would be decided, after considering the payment of interest, if any, in accordance with law - Appeal disposed of.
Issues involved:
Inter-unit transfer of goods, payment of duty as per CAS-4, adjustment of excess/short payment of duty, refund claim, unjust enrichment. Detailed Analysis: The case involved the manufacture of Moulds classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, by the appellants. They transferred the Moulds to their sister concern for captive use in the manufacture of Wind Operated Electricity Generator. The appellants paid duty based on the cost of production and sought adjustment of excess/short payment of duty as per CAS-4. The Department issued Show Cause Notices for duty payment and refund claim rejection, which were confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld both orders. The main argument presented by the appellants was that it was an inter-unit transfer of goods without a sale to an independent buyer. They requested the adjustment of excess duty against the short payment, leading to an excess payment that could be refunded. They relied on a Tribunal decision in a similar case to support their position. On the contrary, the Revenue's Authorized Representative contended that the refund claim against excess duty payment could not be adjusted against the current demand. He cited a Tribunal decision to support the denial of the refund claim based on the principle of unjust enrichment. After considering both arguments and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal found that it was indeed an inter-unit transfer within the appellant's company. Following previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to adjust the excess duty against the short payment due to the nature of the transaction involving no sale of goods. The Tribunal distinguished this case from another where a sale of goods was involved. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to decide on the refund/demand of duty after adjusting the excess/short payment of duty and considering any applicable interest, in accordance with the law. Consequently, both appeals were disposed of accordingly.
|
