Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs And Service Tax ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal10 February 2015

CitationAppeal No 38-2007

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a provisional assessment was finalised before 13/07/2006, the consequential refund of duty arising from that finalisation is not subject to the principle of unjust enrichment, the Tribunal following the Larger Bench decision in Kandla v. Hindustan Zinc on that point.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALSOUTH ZONAL BENCHBANGALOREAppeal(s) Involved:C/720/2007-DB

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 38-2007 dated 20/08/2007 passed by CCE,C&ST(Appeals), Visakhapatnam-IV ]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Smt.ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT VISAKHAPATNAM Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Customs And Service Tax VISAKHAPATNAM-CUS NULL CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING... PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM, - 530035 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Ms. Neetu James, Advocate For the Appellant

Shri S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 10/02/2015

Date of Decision: 10/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE Smt. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20302 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

After hearing both the sides, we find that the short issue required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the appellant would be entitled to refund of duty, as a result of finalization of provisions assessments prior to 13/07/2006, without raising the issue of applicability of unjust enrichment.

2. We find that the issue stands decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CC, Kandla Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2009(235) ELT 629 (Tri. LB)]. By taking note of the Honble Gujarat High Courts decision in the case of CC Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. [2008(231) ELT 36 (Guj.)], the Larger Bench held that the consequential refunds arising out of finalization of the provisional assessments would not invite the principles of unjust enrichment, prior to the period 13/07/2006, on which date the provisional assessment provisions were amended.

3. By following the cited decisions, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

Raja.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free