9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 301 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre deposit - Payment of excess duty - Bar of limitation - Held that - If assessee has paid excess duty on all clearances during the relevant period, such excesses have to be taken into account for confirming the demand of duty in terms of the provisions of Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation Rules. If that is taken into account, the appellant has undisputedly paid excess duty of ₹ 2 crores. - law was declared against them in the case of Audi Automobiles referred above and was not clear during the relevant period. The said decision was issued in the year 2010. The Tribunal in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III 2015 (1) TMI 1082 - CESTAT MUMBAI has held that in such a scenario, the demand would be barred by limitation. - Stay granted.
Issues:
Central Excise duty confirmation, Adoption of Rule 10A, Excess payment of duty, Limitation period, Adjustments for excess duty, Unjust enrichment, Pre-deposit of balance amount, Stay petition. Central Excise Duty Confirmation: The appellant had Central Excise duty of approximately &8377; 8.52 crores confirmed against them for the period November 2008 to March 2013 based on a show-cause notice issued on 21/11/2013. The duty was related to the fabrication of bodies on duty paid chassis received from M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. The appellant cleared fully made vehicles by paying excise duty based on the Ujjagar Prints formula. Adoption of Rule 10A: The Revenue contended that the appellant should have discharged duty liability based on the value at which the vehicles were sold by Tata Motors. The appellant's method of adopting the assessable value was questioned, leading to the confirmation of the demand along with interest and penalty. The appellant acknowledged that the issue of adoption of Rule 10A had been decided against them in previous Tribunal decisions. Excess Payment of Duty: The appellant claimed that their method of adopting the assessable value sometimes resulted in excess payment of duty on motor vehicles. They argued that after adjusting excess payments against less payments, they had actually paid an amount of &8377; 2 crores more than required. However, the adjudicating authority rejected this plea, citing unjust enrichment provisions. Limitation Period: The appellant argued that the demand was barred by limitation, as the Revenue delayed issuing the show-cause notice due to seeking details from the appellant, which the appellant allegedly avoided. The Tribunal considered the issue of limitation, especially in light of the ambiguity surrounding the law during the relevant period. Adjustments for Excess Duty and Unjust Enrichment: The appellant highlighted Tribunal decisions supporting adjustments for neutralizing excess and less paid duty. They argued that such adjustments would not amount to a refund of duty and would not trigger unjust enrichment provisions. The Tribunal agreed that if excess duty payments were made, they should be considered in confirming the duty demand. Pre-deposit of Balance Amount and Stay Petition: After discussions on the limitation period and excess duty payments, the appellant agreed that the demand within the limitation would be around &8377; 1.48 crores. They had already deposited around &8377; 36.24 lakhs by reversing the credit. Consequently, the Tribunal dispensed with the condition of pre-deposit of the balance amount of duties, interest, and penalty, granting the stay petition. This judgment analyzed various aspects of Central Excise duty confirmation, Rule 10A adoption, excess duty payments, limitation period, adjustments for excess duty, unjust enrichment, pre-deposit requirements, and stay petition considerations, providing a comprehensive legal analysis and resolution of the issues raised by the appellant.
|
