2016 (11) TMI 104 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - manufacture of pan masala containing tobacco commonly known as gutkha - whether the respondent had actually paid excess duty for July 2008 and whether the same can be adjusted against the duty for the month of August 2008? - Held that - Revenue in their Memorandum of Appeal have only contested that instead of making suo moto adjustments the respondent should have applied for refund of duty paid by them in excess. Otherwise there is no dispute about the assessee s duty liability paid collectively in the months of July and August 2008. When the liability for the period July was also required to be discharged in the month of August 2008 itself and the respondent done so I find no merits in Revenue s appeal and no justifiable reasons to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the authorities below - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Calculation of duty payable under Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008.
2. Adjustment of excess duty paid for July 2008 against duty payable for August 2008.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the calculation of duty payable by a manufacturer of gutkha under the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2008. The rules specified the duty calculation based on the number of operating packing machines in the factory and the applicable rate of duty. The dispute arose when the assessee allegedly short paid duty for August 2008. The assessee claimed that the duty paid in excess for July 2008 should be adjusted against the duty payable for August 2008. The main issue was whether the excess duty paid for July 2008 could be adjusted against the duty liability for August 2008.

2. The Joint Commissioner adjudicated the Show Cause Notice and observed that the assessee had paid the entire duty required for the period of July 2008 and August 2008 by the due date specified in the rules. The Joint Commissioner also addressed the issue of claiming refund of excess duty paid for July 2008, stating that as the duty for July 2008 was paid in advance by the due date, there was no need to claim a refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing that the duty liability for both July 2008 and August 2008 was correctly discharged by the assessee. The appellate authority concluded that there was no short payment of duty for August 2008 and no need for a refund of the excess duty paid for July 2008.

3. The Revenue contended in their appeal that the assessee should have applied for a refund of the excess duty paid instead of making adjustments. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the duty liability for July 2008 was required to be discharged in August 2008, which the assessee had done. As there was no dispute about the duty liability paid collectively for July and August 2008, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the actions of the assessee were in compliance with the rules, and there was no justification to interfere with the decisions of the lower authorities.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, ruling in favor of the assessee and rejecting the Revenue's appeal regarding the adjustment of excess duty paid for July 2008 against the duty payable for August 2008.