9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, Consultant For the Respondent ORDER Per Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar The facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee are manufacturers of lubricating oils and its allied preparations falling under Chapters 27 & 34 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute in the present appeal relates to finalization of provisional assessment in respect of lubricating oils cleared by the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and also imposition of penalty under various provisions of law. The original authority vide order dt. 30.11.2009 confirmed the said demand of differential duty with interest. Original authority also held that the assessee is not eligible for refund of the excess duty of excise of Rs. 1,03,94,623/- paid by them. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dt. 13.11.2013 relying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty towards short payment ascertained at the finalization of assessment, is not absolute and subject to unjust enrichment principles. 3. Per contra, for the respondent-assessee Ld. Consultant Shri D. Arvind submitted that the matter is no longer res integra and a number of Tribunal decisions have held, following the ratio laid down by the Karnataka High Court in Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by another Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE & ST Vadodara Vs Panasonic Battery India Co. Ltd. - 2014 (303) ELT 231 (Tri.-LB). The Excel Rubber decision was yet again distinguished by a Third Member Bench of the Tribunal in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur - 2016 (332) ELT 328 (Tri.-Del.). The majority decision, relying upon the Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts judgement (supra) held that the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
