2018 (12) TMI 301 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Provisional assessment - whether evidence stand produced by the appellant prove excess payment and refund would result in unjust enrichment to the appellant? - Held that - The denial to finalise the assessment not treating the same as provisional is bad and against the provisions of law The impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the assessments were provisional or not.
2. Whether the evidence presented by the appellant proves excess payment and if a refund would result in unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
1. The appellants are engaged in manufacturing transmission equipment for M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL). They were allotted preferential quotas by these customers, and the prices were determined based on the lowest tender price. A provisional purchase order was issued by M/s BSNL for the supply of STM-1 ADM equipment. However, errors in calculating excise duty resulted in excess payment of duties amounting to ?56,97,591. A refund claim was filed, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The main issue in the appeal was whether the assessments were provisional and if the evidence showed excess payment justifying a refund without unjust enrichment. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the same appellant's case, where it was held that denial to finalize the assessment as provisional was against the law. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders and remanded the matter for a fresh decision by the Adjudicating Authority in line with the earlier Tribunal order. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the validity of provisional assessments under the Central Excise Rules.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, the facts of the case, the errors in duty calculation leading to excess payment, the rejection of the refund claim, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal precedents regarding provisional assessments and unjust enrichment.