9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1242 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of refund - Unjust enrichment - Held that - The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the Original Authority is bound to follow the earlier appellate order, which allowed the adjustment of excess with short payment during the finalization of provisional assessment. On this issue, the impugned order cannot be faulted as such adjustment of duty on finalization of provisional assessment is held to be legally valid by the Tribunal in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. 2015 (11) TMI 953 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) . The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE,LTU, Bangalore 2011 (10) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . Considering the ratio followed by the Tribunal, no merit found in the present appeal filed by revenue. - Decided against the revenue
Issues:
1. Adjustment of excess duty against excess credit during finalization of provisional assessment. 2. Question of unjust enrichment in refund claims. 3. Compliance with earlier appellate orders. 4. Legal validity of adjusting duty liability during finalization of assessment. Analysis: Issue 1: Adjustment of excess duty against excess credit during finalization of provisional assessment The case involved the respondent, engaged in textile processing, paying central excise duty on a provisional basis from March 2001 to Feb. 2002. The assessments were finalized, revealing excess payment of &8377; 12,59,735 and excess deemed credit of &8377; 23,26,626. The Original Authority directed the respondent to reverse the excess credit and file a separate claim for the excess duty paid. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the excess duty should have been adjusted against the excess credit. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing legal validity in adjusting duty during finalization of provisional assessments. The order by the Commissioner (Appeals) to comply with the earlier appellate decision was deemed appropriate. Issue 2: Question of unjust enrichment in refund claims The Revenue contended that the burden of proving unjust enrichment rested on the respondent, who failed to provide evidence that they bore the duty burden. The respondent argued that they had borne the excess payment burden and their buyers had adjusted the amount. The Tribunal considered the legal principles and found that the adjustment of excess duty payment against short payment was permissible, and unjust enrichment did not apply in this scenario. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and upheld the respondent's entitlement to the refund. Issue 3: Compliance with earlier appellate orders The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the refund to be paid in compliance with the earlier order, which allowed adjustment of excess duty with short payment during finalization of provisional assessment. The Tribunal found this directive to be legally valid and in line with the decision in Hindustan Zinc Ltd., dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Issue 4: Legal validity of adjusting duty liability during finalization of assessment The Tribunal, following legal precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in a related case, affirmed the legality of adjusting duty liability during the finalization of provisional assessments. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it accordingly. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the legal validity of adjusting duty liabilities during the finalization of provisional assessments and the entitlement of the respondent to the refund based on the earlier appellate orders.
|
