J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 697 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 11-10-2018
E\/41550\/2018 – 42582\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nFor the Appellant : Shri Sai Prasanth, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent : Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR)
\nORDER
\nThe brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in manufacture of tyres, tubes and flaps. They are selling the manufactured goods, through their depots \/ dealers located all over India at the net dealer price since the quantum of various discounts are not known at the time of clearance they requested for provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules 2002 for the period from October 2012 to December 2012 and from January 2013 to March 2013.
\nThe provisional assessment was finalised vide Order-in-Original No.71\/2013 (Prov. Ass.) dated 23.12.2013. The short pai<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n e OIO No. 13\/2017-RF and the refund was sanctioned but the original authority again directed to credit the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) again upheld such order. Thus appellants are once again before the Tribunal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n unt after such adjustment. In Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts stated (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had occasion to analyse the issue and has held that such adjustment is permissible. The relevant portion of the Hon'ble High Court order is reproduced as under : = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer CommissionerateCentral Excise2018 (10) TMI 697 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 11-10-2018E\/41550\/2018 – 42582\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Sai Prasanth, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) ORDER The … Continue reading “J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14474","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14474"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14474\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld.Counsel Shri Sai Prasanth appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that vide order of finalization of provisional assessment the excess amount of Rs. 22,98,934\/- (Rs.23,40,314 (-) Rs. 41,380) was ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the amount has not passed the test of unjust enrichment. He submitted that it is settled that duty short paid and duty excess paid during the provisional assessment can be adjusted against each other; that it is also settled law that test of unjust enrichment is not applicable for the purpose of such adjustment. He relies upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n “8. Therefore, it is clear that after a final assessment order is passed, if the duty paid in terms of provisional assessment is less than the duty payable after the final assessment, the assessee is liable to pay the interest on the short fall. In the entire scheme of Rule 7, there is no indication that when an assessee is permitted to pay duty in pursuance of a provisional assessment order, if he is dealing with more than one goods, they have to be treated separately. Even though the duty payable under the Act is to be calculated under each head of each case ultimately it is the total duty payable for all the goods which are the subject matter of the provisional assessment and final assessment which is to be taken i<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n