TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/2977/2011-DB, E/21248/2014-DB, E/21250/2014-DB, E/21252/2014-DB, E/21304/2014-DB, E/22842/2014-DB, E/22843/2014-DB, E/603/2004-DB - Final Order Nos. 20596 – 20603/2018 - Dated:- 11-4-2018 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR)- For the Appellant Shri D.D. Bhat, Advocate- For the Respondent Order Per: V. PADMANABHAN The present set of appeals has been filed by Revenue against various orders-in appeal pertaining to the same issue. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is common, these are being disposed of through this common order. The details of the appeals are as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods viz., Tyres, Tubes and Flaps falling under Chapter 40 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period under dispute, provisional assessments were resorted to since the goods were cleared by the assessee through their depots and the depot prices on the dates of such clearance from the factory were not readily available. Subsequently at the time of finalization of the provisional assessments for the various periods, it was noticed that the assessee had paid duty more than what was payable on final assessment and they filed refund claims for the excess paid amounts. Both the authorities below allowed the sanction of the refund claims. However Revenue has filed the present appeals by taking the view that before grant of refund the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ataka in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, LTU, Bangalore - 2012 (276) E.L.T. 332 (Kar.). 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of record, we note that the -refunds involved in all the present appeals have been granted by the original authority and the same have also been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The only reason for challenging the impugned orders by Revenue is that such refunds have been granted without considering the aspect of unjust enrichment. Revenue has argued that even in the case of provisional assessment finalization, refund can be granted only subject to the test of unjust enrichment. 5.1. We note that an identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Indian Telep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the cited case: 4. After hearing both the sides, we find that the short issue required to be decided is as to whether the duty excess paid by the assessee during the period of provisional assessment is required to be adjusted towards the duty short-paid by them, upon finalization of such provisional assessment. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal laying down that such adjustment is required to be done. However, reference can be made to latest decision in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur: 2015-TIOL-2427-CESTAT-DEL. wherein there was originally difference of opinion between the two Members of the Bench and the issue was decided by the third M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
