2019 (1) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) For the Appellant Shri D. Arvind, Consultant For the Respondent ORDER Per Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar The facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee are manufacturers of lubricating oils and its allied preparations falling under Chapters 27 & 34 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute in the present appeal relates to finalization of provisional assessment in respect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Rs. 20,07,335/- with interest thereon and also imposition of penalty under various provisions of law. The original authority vide order dt. 30.11.2009 confirmed the said demand of differential duty with interest. Original authority also held that the assessee is not eligible for refund of the excess duty of excise of Rs. 1,03,94,623/- paid by them. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld that adjustment of excess payment of duty towards short payment ascertained at the finalization of assessment, is not absolute and subject to unjust enrichment principles. 3. Per contra, for the respondent-assessee Ld. Consultant Shri D. Arvind submitted that the matter is no longer res integra and a number of Tribunal decisions have held, following the ratio laid down by the Karnataka High ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ger Bench in Excel Rubber Ltd. was departed with by another Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE & ST Vadodara Vs Panasonic Battery India Co. Ltd. - 2014 (303) ELT 231 (Tri.-LB). The Excel Rubber decision was yet again distinguished by a Third Member Bench of the Tribunal in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur - 2016 (332) ELT 328 (Tri.-Del.). The majority decision, relying upon the Toyota Kirloskar ....