Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 357 - HC - Central ExciseAdjustment/refund of the excess provisional duty - unjust enrichment - whether such a refund/adjustment deserves to be made under erstwhile u/r 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or the Respondent-assessee has to claim such refund by adopting the procedure u/s 11B of the Act establishing before the Revenue Department that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the customers, to avoid ‘unjust enrichment’ to the Respondent-assessee by making such refund/adjustment? Held that:- We are not impressed with the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue before us that in view of the Proviso of Rule 9B(5) of the Rules w.e.f. 25.07.1999 merely because the order u/r 9B(5) came to be passed after the date in the year 2006, the Respondent-assessee was required to take recourse of Section 11B of the Act. On the contrary, the adjustment/refund or short payment of provisional duty was required to be determined by the Assessing Authority under Rule 9B(5) of the Rules as it then existed during the contemporary period of taxable event of manufacture and removal of goods took place. The Rule governing the obligations or liability of the Respondent-assessee relevant on the date of removal of goods and payment of provisional duty will apply, rather than the Rule as amended subsequently after which, the belated order came to be passed by the Assessing Authority in the year 2006. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeals filed by the appellant-Revenue - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-Revenue.
|