2025 (9) TMI 1268 - HC - Central Excise

Revenue appeals dismissed; refunds from finalized provisional assessments allowed without applying unjust enrichment or presumption in Section 12B/Rule 7

The Commissioner of Central Excise Mysore Commissionerate, Principal Commissioner Of Central GST Mysore Versus M/s. J.K. Tyre Industries Ltd.,

HC dismissed the revenue's appeals and upheld the view that refunds arising from finalization of provisional assessments may be allowed without applying ... Correctness in allowing the refund arisen on finalization of provisional assessment, without examining unjust enrichment clause - failure to appreciate and follow the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Madras V/S M/s Addison & Co. Ltd. [2016 (8) TMI 1071 - SUPREME COURT] - applicability of doctrine of unjust enrichment in the case of Provisional Assessments - refund of duty is governed by the provisions contained in proviso (d) & (e) of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or not - presumption contained in Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies or not in case of Provisional Assessments also. HELD THAT:- The facts referred to hereinabove are identical to those involved in the order of the CESTAT dated 11.04.2018. There is no change either in the factual matrix or in the legal position, except for the difference in the periods under consideration. Significantly, the order of the CESTAT dated 11.04.2018 was challenged by the Revenue before this Court in CEA No. 39/2018. By judgment dated 01.09.2021, this Court, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Addison and Company Limited [2016 (8) TMI 1071 - SUPREME COURT], held that the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 12B of the Act are not applicable in cases of provisional assessment. The substantial questions of law raised herein are squarely covered. No justifiable or demonstrable ground is made out to take a different view or to depart from the order passed in CEA No. 39/2018. The Revenue has not urged any other ground warranting independent examination of these appeals. There are no merit in the appeals. Accordingly, all the appeals stand dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to refunds arising on finalization of provisional assessments under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Whether Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 7 of the Rules operate in provisional assessment cases to impose on the assessee the burden of proving that the incidence of duty was not passed on to customers before refund is allowed. 3. Whether netting off excess-paid duty against short-paid duty at the time of finalization of provisional assessment is permissible, or whether such netting is prohibited absent examination of unjust enrichment. 4. Whether the CESTAT erred in following its earlier decision in the assessee's own case and the co-ordinate High Court judgment, instead of applying the law as set out in the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras v. Addison & Co. Ltd. 5. Whether principles analogous to res judicata / finality of assessment years affect the present provisional-assessment refund issues (i.e., whether each year's assessment is final to that year and precludes application of res judicata across years). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Applicability of unjust enrichment doctrine to provisional-assessment refunds Legal framework: Refunds on finalization of provisional assessment arise upon reassessment of duty payable under Rule 7 (provisional assessment) read with relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act. The doctrine of unjust enrichment prevents refunding amounts to a party that has already passed the economic burden to others. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal had held that Section 12B and Rule 7 are not applicable to provisional assessments; a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court reached a similar conclusion in an earlier case involving the same assessee, following the Supreme Court decision in Addison & Co. Ltd. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the view of the co-ordinate Bench that where provisional assessment operates, the statutory scheme governing refunds and the presumption in Section 12B do not apply in the same manner as in normal assessments. The Court noted no change in factual matrix and that the earlier High Court order had attained finality. Accordingly, the Court treated the unjust enrichment requirement as not governing refunds arising from provisional assessments in the same way as in finalized ordinary assessments. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - provisional-assessment refunds are not governed by the unjust enrichment enquiry in the manner contemplated by Section 12B/Rule 7 for ordinary assessments; reliance on the Supreme Court decision was treated as dispositive. No separate obiter reasoning modifying that principle was adopted. Conclusions: The doctrine of unjust enrichment, and the attendant onus arising under Section 12B/Rule 7, does not apply to bar refunds in cases of provisional assessment as held by the Tribunal and affirmed by the co-ordinate Bench; the Court declined to disturb that view. Issue 2 - Applicability of Section 12B and Rule 7 in provisional assessments (onus to prove non-passing of incidence) Legal framework: Section 12B creates presumptions concerning levy and collection of duty; Rule 7 provides for provisional assessment when value is not determinable at removal and its finalization thereafter. Precedent Treatment: The Supreme Court's decision in Addison & Co. Ltd. was relied upon and earlier High Court orders held that Section 12B and Rule 7 are not applicable to provisional assessment cases for the purposes of imposing the onus to prove non-passing of incidence before refund. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court, following the co-ordinate Bench and the Supreme Court precedent as construed by that Bench, concluded that the presumptions under Section 12B and the requirements of Rule 7 do not impose on the assessee the obligation to demonstrate non-passing of incidence before a refund consequent to finalization of provisional assessment. The Court emphasized finality of the earlier High Court judgment and absence of any new legal ground to depart from it. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 12B and Rule 7 do not apply in the same manner in provisional assessment finalizations to require the assessee to prove absence of passing-on; the presumption in Section 12B is inapplicable to provisional assessment refunds as decided by prior authoritative rulings relied upon by the Court. Conclusions: The onus to demonstrate that duty incidence was not passed on does not lie on the assessee in provisional assessment finalization under the construed legal framework affirmed by the Court. Issue 3 - Legality of netting excess-paid and short-paid duties at finalization of provisional assessment Legal framework: At finalization of provisional assessment, adjustments may result in both excess and short payments of duty; the question is whether netting or offset between such amounts is permissible without separate unjust enrichment inquiry. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal permitted netting in the assessee's own case; the co-ordinate High Court upheld that approach consistent with the view that Section 12B/Rule 7 are not applicable to provisional assessments. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the Tribunal's and the co-ordinate Bench's treatment permitting netting/adjustment at finalization of provisional assessment. Given the established view that the unjust enrichment presumption framework does not apply in provisional assessment cases, the Court found no illegality in netting excess and short payments to arrive at a net refund/demand. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - netting of excess-paid duties against short-paid duties at finalization of provisional assessment is permissible under the legal approach affirmed by the Court; there is no requirement of a separate unjust enrichment examination prior to such netting in provisional assessment cases. Conclusions: Netting/adjustment to compute net refund/demand on finalization of provisional assessment is legally acceptable; objection that such netting is improper without unjust enrichment scrutiny was rejected. Issue 4 - Appropriateness of following Tribunal's earlier order and co-ordinate High Court judgment versus application of Supreme Court authority Legal framework: The Court must follow binding Supreme Court authority; however, co-ordinate Bench decisions of the High Court and prior final orders in the same matter are relevant where the Supreme Court precedent has been interpreted by the co-ordinate Bench and attained finality. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal and the co-ordinate High Court had followed and interpreted the Supreme Court decision in Addison & Co. Ltd. as excluding Section 12B/Rule 7 application to provisional assessments; the Revenue urged re-examination contending the Tribunal did not properly apply the Supreme Court decision. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the co-ordinate Bench had already considered Addison & Co. Ltd. and reached the conclusion that the statutory provisions are inapplicable to provisional assessments. The Revenue conceded the co-ordinate Bench order had attained finality. Absent any new or demonstrable grounds to depart from that binding co-ordinate Bench decision, the Court refused to re-open the issue. The Court did not undertake an independent re-analysis of the Supreme Court decision to arrive at a contrary conclusion. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a co-ordinate High Court judgment interpreting Supreme Court authority has attained finality in the same factual matrix, subsequent appeals will not be entertained in the absence of fresh grounds to depart; following the co-ordinate Bench decision was therefore appropriate. Conclusions: The Tribunal's reliance on its earlier order and the High Court's prior final decision was proper; no merit found in Revenue's contention that the Tribunal misapplied or failed to follow the Supreme Court decision in a manner warranting interference. Issue 5 - Effect of finality of assessment years / res judicata principle in tax matters Legal framework: The rule that each year's assessment is final for that year and that res judicata in tax matters has limited application was raised by the Revenue; the appeals questioned whether earlier decisions preclude reconsideration across years. Precedent Treatment: Co-ordinate Bench decisions and the Tribunal's earlier orders in this assessee's own case were relied upon; the Court noted the Revenue's concession that the earlier High Court order had attained finality. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court did not engage in a broad re-examination of res judicata principles in tax law but accepted that the identical factual and legal matrix to the earlier final decision meant no justification existed to differ from that prior final conclusion. The Court thereby treated the earlier final order as dispositive for the present appeals. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where identical issues and facts are before the Court and a prior High Court judgment on the same matter has attained finality, that prior judgment will govern unless new, demonstrable grounds are produced; application of res judicata principles in the broader tax context was not expanded or modified. Conclusions: The appeals were dismissed on the ground that the issues are squarely covered by the earlier final High Court judgment and there were no fresh grounds to warrant deviation.