2025 (2) TMI 180 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds 2014-15 Duty Assessment, No Natural Justice Violation; Excess Duty Appropriated to Consumer Welfare Fund.

The Tribunal upheld the finalization of the provisional assessment for the financial year 2014-15, determining that the principles of natural justice were ... Appropriation of excess paid duty amount towards the short payment of excise duty along with interest amount - duty incidence has already been passed on to their buyers or not - principles of unjust enrichment - lack of personal hearing - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The present appeal stands squarely covered against them as decided by the First Appellate Authority following the decision of the Apex Court in their own case COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS VERSUS M/S ADDISON & CO. LTD. [2016 (8) TMI 1071 - SUPREME COURT] where the claim was rejected. The finalization of the provisional assessment did not violate the principles of natural justice. Conclusion - The Apex Court's decision applied to the present facts, finding no grounds to deviate from the established precedent. The appellant contended a lack of personal hearing, which is a critical component of natural justice, but the appellant's claims were not sufficient to overturn the findings of the Original Authority. Appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are:1. Whether the provisional assessment for the financial year 2014-15 was finalized in accordance with the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the opportunity for a personal hearing.2. Whether the decision of the Original Authority, which appropriated the excess paid duty amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund, was consistent with the applicable legal framework and precedents, specifically considering the appellant's claim that the duty incidence had not been passed on to the buyers.3. The relevance and applicability of prior judgments, particularly the decision of the Apex Court in the appellant's own case, to the present appeal.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Finalization of Provisional Assessment and Principles of Natural Justice- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The finalization of provisional assessments is governed by Rule 7(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The principles of natural justice require that parties be given an opportunity for a personal hearing before adverse decisions are made.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal considered whether the appellant was afforded a fair opportunity to present their case. It was noted that the appellant contended a lack of personal hearing, which is a critical component of natural justice.- Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant argued that the Original Authority finalized the assessment without a personal hearing. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant's claims were not sufficient to overturn the findings of the Original Authority.- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice to the facts and found that the procedural requirements were substantially met, despite the appellant's claims.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's argument regarding the lack of a personal hearing was weighed against the procedural history and the decisions of the lower authorities.- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the finalization of the provisional assessment did not violate the principles of natural justice.2. Appropriation of Excess Duty to Consumer Welfare Fund- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 12C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, governs the appropriation of excess duty amounts to the Consumer Welfare Fund when the duty incidence has been passed on to buyers.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the duty incidence was indeed passed on to the buyers, justifying the appropriation to the Consumer Welfare Fund.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Original Authority had determined that the duty incidence was passed on, and thus, the excess amount was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the provisions of Section 12C and upheld the Original Authority's decision based on the evidence that the duty incidence was passed on.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's claim that the duty incidence was not passed on was considered but ultimately dismissed in light of the evidence and legal provisions.- Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the appropriation of the excess duty amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund.3. Applicability of Prior Judgments- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The decision of the Apex Court in the appellant's own case, as reported in 2016 (339) ELT 177 (SC), was pivotal to the appeal.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the First Appellate Authority had relied on the Apex Court's decision, which was binding and directly applicable to the issues at hand.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the issues raised in the present appeal were already settled by the Apex Court in the appellant's own case.- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the Apex Court's decision to the present facts, finding no grounds to deviate from the established precedent.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's reliance on a pending High Court decision was noted, but the Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of the Apex Court's ruling.- Conclusions: