TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S LTD., VIKRANT TYRES LTD. [2018 (6) TMI 174 - CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held that adjustments at the time of finalization of provisional assessments would be permissible without putting the excess duty paid to the test of unjust enrichment. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20558/2018-SM, E/20684/2018-SM - Final Order Nos. 20089-20090/2019 - Dated:- 22-1-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Dattatray D Bhat, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Madhup Sharan, Assistant Commissioner For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG These two appeals are directed against the common impugned order dated 01.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss otherwise proved that the incidence of duty is passed on to the ultimate consumer. Hence the excess duty claimed to be paid by the assessee has been collected from the consumers and it was held that the excess duty paid is liable to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund. Aggrieved by the order of the adjudicating authority, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who upheld the order in respect of unjust enrichment. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is contrary to the facts and the binding judicial precedent on the same issue. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty has not been passed on to any other person who includes the ultimate consumer as well. 6. After hearing the submissions of both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, I find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal wherein it has been consistently held that in a case of provisional assessment, doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable. Here it is pertinent to refer to the finding of the Division Bench in the appellant s own case in the order dated 11.04.2018 wherein the Tribunal has held as under: 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 authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of adjustment stands extended in their favour of the respondent-assessee by following the decision in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra). 7. We have heard both sides and gone through the records in detail. We find that the decision cited by the learned advocate in the respondent s own case dealing with the finalization of provisional assessments for a different period, needs to be followed for the periods before us. The Tribunal held as follows in 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 finalizati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
