2002 (1) TMI 193 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Stay application, pre-deposit of duty, penalty, excess duty paid, unjust enrichment, refund claim, clearance without payment of duty, permission of appropriate authority officer.

Stay Application and Pre-deposit of Duty: The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both sides on the stay application, found that the issue being settled, the appeal could be taken up for disposal upon granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 5,88,295.38 and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Excess Duty Paid and Unjust Enrichment: The demand was made on three counts, one of which involved the assessee taking suo motu credit of Rs. 2,13,361.80 for excess duty paid due to a retrospective reduction in unit value of goods supplied under contract. The Tribunal held that the assessee should have sought a refund from the department instead of taking the credit on their own, invoking the principle of undue unjust enrichment. The jurisdictional officers were directed to treat the letter of intimation as a refund claim and process it as per law.

Clearance Without Payment of Duty: Another count of duty amounting to Rs. 3,43,164.60 was imposed on the ground that credit was taken for goods eligible for clearance without payment of duty. The Tribunal, citing precedent, set aside the impugned orders, stating that exemption could be forced upon the assessee and that payment of duty was still competent even in the face of an exemption notification, granting appropriate relief.

Permission of Appropriate Authority Officer: The third count of Rs. 31,768.98 was related to credit taken under Rule 57H without prior permission of the appropriate authority officer. The Tribunal noted that the rule at the material time did not specify the condition of prior permission but required a declaration to be made. Citing precedent, the Tribunal allowed the credit taken as admissible.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee on the aforementioned terms.