2016 (7) TMI 1070 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands appeals for fresh adjudication on valuation method under Rule 4

Roots Multi Clean Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore

The Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding them to the original authority for fresh adjudication based on the valuation method under Rule 4 of the ... Suomotu adjustment of the excess duty paid - differential duty was paid every month after self adjusting the excess and short payments - Held that:- We find that the department has taken into account only the duty short paid and not the duty paid in excess - While holding that the order passed by the authorities below is erroneous and are liable to be set aside, we hold that with regard to refund, it is proper for the appellant to approach the office concerned for verification and certificate of excess payment which cannot be verified in this forum. This is the second round of litigation and we find that yet another remand is not appropriate but in the facts of the present case, the appellant is seeking refund of excess payment. While there is no reason to disbelieve their claim, in the interest of fairness and justice, we direct the appellant to approach the department to seek refund of the alleged excess payment. - Matter remanded back. Issues involved: Central Excise Valuation, Duty payment evaluation, Unjust enrichment, Refund of excess payment.Analysis:1. Central Excise Valuation: The case involved the evaluation of transaction value of goods by M/s. Roots Multi Clean Ltd. under Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000 read with Section 4 (1) (b) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant cleared final products along with parts and accessories directly to customers and depots. Various show cause notices were issued alleging incorrect evaluation of transaction value, leading to demand confirmation, penalty imposition, and interest demand. The Tribunal's order allowed appeals by remanding them to the original authority for fresh adjudication based on the valuation method under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.2. Duty payment evaluation: The appellant contended excess payment made, highlighting discrepancies in the duty demanded and paid amounts. The department considered only duty short paid, overlooking the duty paid in excess. The appellant sought a refund of the excess amount paid, emphasizing their entitlement to it based on the Tribunal's order and their payment practices. The Tribunal acknowledged the excess payment issue, directing the appellant to approach the concerned office for verification and certification of excess payment, allowing for a refund if due.3. Unjust enrichment: The issue of unjust enrichment was raised concerning the excess duty payment made by the appellant. The department argued that unjust enrichment did not apply in this case due to the appellant's payment practices. However, the Tribunal noted that while setting aside the impugned order, the appellant's prayer did not automatically entitle them to a refund. The Tribunal directed the appellant to seek refund verification from the department, emphasizing fairness and justice in considering the refund claim.4. Refund of excess payment: The Tribunal recognized the appellant's claim for a refund of excess payment and directed them to approach the department for verification and certification of the alleged excess payment. Emphasizing the need for fairness and justice, the Tribunal instructed the department to verify the claim within four months and grant a refund if found correct both legally and arithmetically. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in terms of granting the appellant the opportunity to seek refund of the alleged excess payment, ensuring a fair resolution to the long-standing issue.