2017 (9) TMI 765 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess duty paid - Held that - the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that once the provisional assessment got finalized on the basis of requisite documents already submitted by the respondent, the refund claim cannot be denied for want of requisite documents - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 185 to 188-CE/LKO/2014 dated 10/10/2014; Provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; Refund claim by respondent; Denial of refund claim by Revenue; Unjust enrichment; Appeal grounds by Revenue; Dismissal of appeal by Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 185 to 188-CE/LKO/2014 dated 10/10/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Lucknow. The case involved the respondents engaged in the manufacture of Transmission Equipments who requested provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 due to non-finalization of rate contract prices for supply to the Department of Telecommunication. Subsequently, assessments were finalized for the Financial Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, resulting in excess duty payments by the respondent. The respondent applied for a refund of the excess duty paid, which was granted after submission of required documents. The Revenue appealed against the refund orders, arguing that the respondent did not submit necessary documents, the previous appeal decision was not accepted, and the duty incidence was not proved to be borne by the respondent.

The Commissioner (Appeals) held that once provisional assessment was finalized based on submitted documents, the refund claim could not be denied. It was noted that the issue of unjust enrichment had been settled in previous orders, and there was no enrichment at the cost of the customer. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and found that the grounds raised by Revenue were not sustainable. Moreover, the Tribunal highlighted that a previous appeal by Revenue against a similar order had been dismissed. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue, and the respondents were entitled to any consequential relief in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the refund claim, emphasizing the importance of finalized provisional assessments and the absence of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal was based on the lack of sustainable grounds and the previous dismissal of a similar appeal. The respondents were granted relief as deemed appropriate by the Tribunal.