9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Shri D. Arvind, 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 factory in bulk to their filling unit for repacking during the period January 2008 to December 2008. Assessee had arrived at the value of stock-transferred goods under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000, based on cost of production of such goods. The assessment in respect of such goods is provisional and finalized b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he grounds of appeal. He relies upon the Tribunal s Larger Bench decision in Excel Rubber Ltd. Vs CCE Hyderabad 2011 (268) ELT 419 (Tri.-LB) wherein it was held that adjustment of excess payment of duty 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. Ltd. (supra), that adjustment of excess payment of duty towards short payment ascertained at the finalization of assessment is not barred. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then for short fall in payment of duty the assessee is liable to pay interest. This very same issue has been subsequently followed by the Tribunal in Jonas Woodhead Sons (I) Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai-IV 2015 (329) ELT 577 (Tri.-Chennai), Sangam Spinners Vs CCE Jaipur 2016 (344) ELT 623 (Tri.-Del.) and ESSAR Steel India Ltd. Vs CCE Raipur 2017 (3450 elt 139 (Tri.-Del.). 5.3 We do not find any new grounds or reasons to deviate from the ratio laid down by the aforesaid decisions which, in our view, are on all fours with the facts of the present appeal. 6. In consequence, no merit is found in the appeal of the Revenue for which reason, it is dismissed. (Order pronounced in Court on 31.12.2018) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
