2019 (9) TMI 1267 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess duty paid - provisional assessment sought for many years, but not done - CBEC No. 619/10/2002 dated 19.02.2002 - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - It can be seen that the Circular though provides for finalization of values at a later date, essentially suggests provisional assessment in such cases. The appellants contend that they have approached the jurisdictional authorities for provisional assessment on a regular basis over the years. However, their request was not exceeded to by the authorities. Whatever be the Department s reason for not accepting provisional assessment, the ratio of the Circular would not be applicable to the appellants. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - As the assessments were not provisional, the Department was not barred from issuing a demand for normal period. Consequentially, the Circular is not applicable to the instant case and the demand is sustainable for the normal period. Adjustment of duty excess paid and short paid - HELD THAT - We find that as there is no such provision in law, we cannot extend any such relief. The Department as a case on merits and the appellants are liable to pay duty for the normal period - the case remanded to the Original Authority to compute the demand for normal period which shall be paid by the appellants - appeal allowed partly by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Assessment practice for goods supplied to M/s CEAT & M/s Goodyear, Provisional assessment request, Adjustment of duty paid, Applicability of Circular No. 619/10/2002, Duty liability on intermediate products.

Analysis:

1. Assessment Practice:
The case revolved around the assessment practice followed by the appellants for goods supplied to M/s CEAT & M/s Goodyear. The appellants argued that they were not aware of the actual value of the goods at the time of clearance due to their suppliers being under provisional assessment. They adopted a practice of using the value provided by their suppliers as a base value for future consignments, leading to fluctuating payments. The authorities issued a demand alleging continuous undervaluation since 2003. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand for the normal period but did not allow the extended period demand, considering the appellants' continuous correspondence with authorities for provisional assessment.

2. Provisional Assessment Request:
The appellants had been requesting provisional assessment from the authorities over the years, citing the Circular No. 619/10/2002, which allowed for provisional assessments in certain cases. However, the authorities did not accept their requests for provisional assessment. The Tribunal held that as the assessments were not provisional, the demand for the normal period was sustainable, and the Circular was not applicable to the case.

3. Adjustment of Duty Paid:
The appellants sought an adjustment for instances where they had paid duty in excess or short. However, the Tribunal ruled that there was no provision in the Central Excise Act for such adjustments. Refunds should have been claimed following due process. The Tribunal cited case laws supporting the position that subsequent price changes do not affect the assessable value already determined.

4. Applicability of Circular No. 619/10/2002:
The Circular provided for finalization of values at a later date but primarily suggested provisional assessment. The Tribunal held that the Circular did not apply to the appellants' case as their assessments were not provisional. The demand for the normal period was upheld.

5. Duty Liability on Intermediate Products:
The appellants argued that no duty should be levied on intermediate products based on certain case laws. However, the Tribunal found that the cited cases were not applicable to the facts of this case. The goods manufactured by the appellants were not considered intermediate goods in this context.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the appellants, upholding the demand for the normal period. The case was remanded to the Original Authority to compute the demand for the normal period. The judgment emphasized the lack of provision for duty adjustments and the inapplicability of certain case laws to the current scenario.