Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 644 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of excess duty paid - Finalization of the provisional assessment - applicability of Rule 7 or Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - HELD THAT:- The appellant has no grievance as far as the computation of duty at the time of final assessment of his goods in terms of Rule 11 read with Rule 4 of Valuation Rules instead of Rule 8, thereof. There is no grievance but admission for the differential duty for entire year of 2013-14 to be calculated as Rs.10,39,750/- in appeal no. 50866/2021 and of Rs. 2,04,258/- in appeal no. 50867 of 2021. Simultaneously, it is observed that Department is not disputing that the duty determined for the entire year 2013-14 was Rs.16,30,42,152.80/- and after final assessment it comes to Rs.16,40,82,902/-. Since there is no denial that instead of the duty amount of Rs. 16,30,43,152.80/- amount of Rs. 16,39,81,197.10/- stands already paid i.e. an amount of Rs.9,38,044.30/- stands already paid in excess by the appellant in Appeal No. 50866 of 2021 and an amount of Rs.47,479/- stands paid in excess in appeal no. 50867 of 2021. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the said excess payment to have already been made by the appellant and to adjust the same in the differential duty demand of Rs.10,39,750/- in appeal no. 50866 of 2021. In view thereof and the no objection by learned DR for the same it is held that the differential duty in the Appeal No. 50866 of 2021 to be recovered from the appellant is only for an amount of Rs.1,01,705.7/- (Rs.10,39,750/- minus Rs.9,38,044.30/-). The order under challenge confirming the recovery of entire amount of Rs.10,39,750/- is therefore liable to be set aside on this score itself. The date of conclusion of personal hearing cannot be the relevant date for invoking the said period in case the adjudicating order pursuant to the said conclusion has not been passed. The circular is opined to be ambiguous. Otherwise also there is no provision in entire excise law to fix a time limit of one month from the date of conclusion of personal hearing to communicate the adjudicating order. In absence thereof the impugned circular is opined to not to be considered at least for rejecting the order under challenge on technical grounds. Application disposed off.
|