2023 (4) TMI 1068

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was transferring those products to their Unit-1 on payment of Central Excise Duty on such assessable value of the said products as used to be arrived at in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. However, the appellants opted for a provisional assessment of duty on the said products for the clearances in the period of 2016-17. 2. The Department scrutinized the Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) - 4 data of the appellant for the said Financial Year 2016-17. From the month-wise duty liability of the appellant, it was found that during the months from August, 2016 to December, 2016 the appellant had paid total duty of Rs.2,17,328/- in excess. However, for the remaining months from January, 2017 to March, 2017, there was a sho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Since then the appellant is discharging its duty liability on cost of production plus at the rate of 10% as per CAS - 4. It is mentioned on behalf of the appellant that duty liability was initially discharged under provisional assessment criteria. When the appellant applied for finalisation of the provisional assessment that the Department has failed to adjust the excess duty paid. 4.1 Ld. Consultant has further impressed upon that since unit No.1 was availing exemption, it was not entitled for any Cenvat Credit. The appellant otherwise has never availed the Cenvat Credit of duty liability discharged. The denial of adjustment of the excess duty or the refund thereof, that too, on the basis of unjust enrichment is mentioned to be highly ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7 NA Nov. 16 8025313 481519 6620488 397229 84290 NA Dec. 16 6783778 407027 5548329 332900 74127 NA Jan. 17 6003745 360225 6596928 395816 NA 35591 Feb. 17 5366576 321995 6591218 395473 NA 73478 Mar. 17 9573096 574386 11451544 687093 NA 112707 TOTAL 48986838 2939210 49060985 2943659 217328 221776 7. Hence, it is an admitted fact that appellant has paid an excess duty of Rs.2,17,328/- during the financial year 2016-17. It is also an admitted fact that said duty liability was discharged based on the provisional assessment. There is also no denial to the facts that Unit-1 was captively consuming the entire manufactu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....td. [2012 (276) E.L.T. 332 (Kar.)] being similar to facts of present case and having been delivered by Karnataka High Court and binding upon Tribunal, Larger Bench decision in Excel Rubber Limited [2011 (268) E.L.T. 419 (Tri.-LB)] were held to have no relevance. Assessee was held entitled to adjustment of excess paid duty with short paid duty in same financial year. 7.1 The Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the case of Mercedes Benz (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-II as reported in 2017 (347) ELT - 0646 also held as follows:- "Adjustment of excess duty paid is allowable at the time of finalization of provisional assessment even when goods supplied to sister unit, who availed Cenvat Credit." 7.2 The Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in another case ....