9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to suo motto adjust the excess/short payment of duties. Time bar - Held that: - the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that in a letter dated 8/8/2007 written to the department appellant has clearly brought to the notice of the Department that adjustment of duty as a result of escalation/de escalation of price of their final products was intimated. On careful perusal of this letter it is observed that only the excess duty required to be paid by the appellant as a result of escalation was intimated to the department after payment. There is no mention in this letter as to how much excess duty was paid and how much less duty paid by the appellant was adjusted. The said intimation will not help the case of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbai)] That first appellate authority has also held that show cause notice is not barred by limitation. It was argued by the Ld. Advocate that by a letter dated 8/8/2007, they have specifically brought to the notice of the jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent that appellant is adjusting duty liability as a result of escalation /non escalation of their final product (PSC Sleepers). That in view of this intimation, demand could be raised only within a period of one year and show cause notice is clearly time barred as being issued after the normal period of limitation. 3. Shri S. Mukhopadhaya , Supdt. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that appellant cannot make suo motto adjustment of duty excess paid/short paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legally admissible as per the case laws relied upon by the appellant. On the other hand, Revenue has also relied upon the case law of Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Pune (supra) where it has been held that adjustment of excess payments and the short payments of duty would attract unjust enrichment and that such adjustment cannot be done. Larger Bench in the case of Excel Rubber Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Hyderabad (supra) has held that even in case of provisional assessment leading to refund, an assesse will be required to file refund claim to justify that unjust enrichment is not attracted. Appellant has relied upon the cases which are pertaining to the periods 2003 and 2006. Ld. A.R. has relied upon the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
