2019 (11) TMI 832 - HC - Central Excise

Adjustment of short paid duty with excess duty paid - Job Work - Motor vehicles - Provisional assessment - HELD THAT - The controversy involved in the present case also relates to adjustment, which has been done by the respondent before this Court as adjustment was done by the respondents by adjusting the excess amount already paid towards duty in subsequent months. No case for interference is made out in the present appeal. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that an appeal has been preferred against Gwalior Bench judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, there is no interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter. This Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal also - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Dispute over excise duty adjustment by the appellant.
3. Interpretation of relevant statutory provisions governing excise duty.
4. Application of the principle of unjust enrichment in excise duty cases.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed a delay of 20 days in filing the appeal, which was subsequently condoned after hearing the counsel for both parties. This issue was resolved at the beginning of the judgment.

2. The dispute revolved around excise duty adjustment by the appellant, a job worker for a company engaged in manufacturing motor vehicles. The appellant availed CENVAT credit on duty paid materials and cleared finished goods for the company. The adjustment of duties paid by the appellant was denied by the Department, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal based on a judgment in a similar case, prompting the Department to approach the High Court.

3. The judgment delved into the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions governing excise duty, specifically Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which deals with provisional assessment. The judgment also referenced Rule 10(A) of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The Division Bench of the Court in a related case addressed the methodology of determining the cost of production and the adjustment of duty payments, emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed rules.

4. The application of the principle of unjust enrichment in excise duty cases was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Division Bench concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the matter, as the adjustment made by the appellant was in line with previous decisions and did not warrant interference. The judgment highlighted that the adjustment was done within the same financial year, and no evidence suggested that the duty incidence was passed on, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, citing the Division Bench's judgment and finding no substantial question of law in the case. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding excise duty adjustment, statutory provisions, and the application of the principle of unjust enrichment in excise duty matters.