9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejection of the balance claim was pertaining to the excess duty paid in the respect of depot sales. It is the case of the Revenue that though Rule 7 of CER, 2002 enabled a taxpayer to claim refund of any amount paid in excess during provisional assessment, but however, the same is not absolute but subject to the principles of unjust enrichment. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. - Hon ble Shri P. Dinesha , Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar , Member ( Technical ) Shri N. Viswanathan , Advocate for the Appellant Shri M. Selvakumar , Authorized Rep. for the Respondent ORDER Per P. Dinesha , These appeals are filed by the taxpayer against the common order of Commissioner, (Appeals), Order in Appeal No. 39 40/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Advocate appeared for the appellant and Shri M. Selvakumar, Authorized Representative appeared for the Revenue. 4. Learned Advocate at the outset, relied on an order of this Bench in their own case for an earlier period in Final Order No. 40480 to 40484/2015 dated 20.4.2015 reported in 2015 (329) ELT 577 wherein, an identical issue has been considered and allowed in their favour. 5. Per contra, Shri M. Selvakumar, learned Authorized Representative relied on the findings of the authorities below. 6. Having heard the rival contentions and after presenting the documents/orders relied upon, we find that the only issue that crops up for our consideration is, whether authorities below were justified in rejecting the refund claims of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excess duty paid is refundable without bar of unjust enrichment being applicable to such refund. 1.3 In finalization of assessment, an integral approach is made to determine ultimate duty liability in respect of all clearance for the relevant period. Since such situation is outcome of application of law and excess duty paid is refundable, bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable. ***** ***** ****** 2.1 Appellant explains further that allegation of Revenue that short payment and excess payment if any being independent of each other, that is of no sense to law in view of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, Bangalore reported in 2012 (276) E.L.T. 33 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hortfall in payment of duty after the final assessment order as Rs. 10,63,417/-. In respect of other items, the assessee has paid Rs. 1,77,20,157/- in excess. But before imposing interest, the authority should have deducted the shortfall in the excess payment made. If there is no shortfall in payment of duty, payment of interest does not arise. They have treated the duty payable under two categories. It was found in respect of some items the duty payable after the final order is more than what was paid under provisional assessment. The approach of the authorities in this regard is erroneous, unwarranted and unsupported by any statutory provision. If we keep in mind the principle underlying the provisions, it is only when the duty is due and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
