2025 (9) TMI 1268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....). ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) 1. Heard learned counsel Sri. Aravind V Chavan for appellant-Revenue and Sri. Dattatreya D Bhat, learned counsel for respondents in all the appeals. Perused the appeal papers. 2. These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the final orders Nos. 20089-20090/2019 dated 22.01.2019 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bengaluru (for short, 'CESTAT'). 3. For the sake of brevity, reference is made to the facts as recorded in CEA No.62/2019. 4. The Revenue has formulated the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court: In CEA No.6....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent is final only for that year and does not govern later years? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in following the Jurisdictional High Court judgment in CEA No. 39/2018 dated 01.09.2021 without discussing the merits of the case? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 19.07.2017? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in not following the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras VS Addision & Co. Ltd., 2016 (339) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) wherein both the issues i.e., verif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dicating Authority held that the incidence of duty had been passed on to the ultimate customers and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to netting off or adjustment of excess payment against the duty short-paid. 7. The assessee challenged the adjudication order before the Commissioner (Appeals), contending that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable and that compliance with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 11(6A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not required. The Commissioner (Appeals), by order dated 01.02.2018, rejected the contentions of the assessee and upheld the view of the Adjudicating Authority. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee preferred an appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner of Central Excise, Madras v. M/s. Addison and Company Limited, reported in (2016) 10 SCC 56. He further contends that though the order relied upon by the Tribunal has been confirmed by this Court in CEA No. 39/2018, in view of the judgment in M/s. Addison and Company Limited (supra) not having been appreciated in its proper perspective, the matter requires independent consideration. 12. Per contra, Sri. Dattatrey D. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, submits that the Tribunal was justified in following its earlier order dated 11.04.2018 passed in the case of the assessee. He further submits that the said order of the CESTAT dated 11.04.2018 has been confirmed by this Court in CEA No. 39/2018. It is his contention that....