Case Details: T.V.S. Motor Company Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Mysore (2025) 36 Centax 299 (Tri.-Bang)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (J) & Shri Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (T)
- Shri Ravi Raghavan & Ms Sneha Philip, Advocates, for the Appellant.
- Shri Sanjay Venkat, Superintendent (AR), for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, an automobile manufacturer, filed refund claims, contending that excess central excise duty had been paid on free service charges, abatement on discounts, and freight charges, and asserting that the incidence of such duty had not been passed on to dealers or ‘any other person’. It was contended that after netting off excess duty paid against duty short-paid, only the balance amount, if any, would be subject to unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the adjustment of excess duty paid against duty short-paid. However, relying on illustrative examples, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee could not demonstrate that the burden of excess duty paid on discounts, claimed as a refund, had not been passed on to any other person. It was also noted that refund claims for similar discounts had been allowed and accepted in another period, as no appeal was filed by the Department. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that adjustment of excess duty paid against duty short-paid was allowed, relying on its decision in J.K. Tyres & Industries Ltd. [2023 (12) TMI 899 – CESTAT Bangalore] and the High Court decision in Vikrant Tyres Ltd. [2021-VIL-729-KAR-CE]. It further held that the matter required examination on the aspect of whether the incidence of duty had been passed on to any other person. The issue of unjust enrichment was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for analysis of the evidence. The appeal was accordingly allowed on the issue of netting off, and the matter was remanded.
List of Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. Addison & Co. Ltd. — 2016 (339) E.L.T. 177 (SC) — Followed [Paras 3.4, 3.6, 8, 9]
- Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (336) E.L.T. 328 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Para 3.2]
- J.K. Tyres & Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2023 (12) TMI 899 – CESTAT Bangalore — Relied on [Paras 3.2, 7]
- Johnsons Matthey (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017 (3) TMI 1449 CESTAT Chandigarh — Relied on [Para 3.5]
- Jonas Woodhead & Sons (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (329) E.L.T. 577 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Para 3.2]
- Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 9]
- Principal Commissioner v. Vikrant Tyres Ltd — 2021-VIL-729-KAR-CE — Followed [Paras 3.3, 7]
- Sudhir Papers Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2012 (276) E.L.T. 304 (Kar.) — Relied on [Para 3.5]
- Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2012 (276) E.L.T. 332 (Kar.) — Relied on [Para 3.2]
