The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a central excise duty demand of ₹1.16 crore and consequential interest holding that the Department could not ignore excess duty paid during the same financial year while finalising a provisional assessment based on annual production costs.
A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal distinguished between adjusting duty already deposited to determine the actual liability and granting a cash refund. Restrictions governing refunds, including unjust enrichment, could not by themselves justify disregarding payments already made when calculating the net duty payable.
Buy Now: Direct tax (Income Tax) E-Magazine September 2026
The dispute concerned Hindustan Zinc’s Rampura Agucha mining unit in Bhilwara, which manufactures lead and zinc concentrate. A substantial portion of its production is consumed by the company’s smelting units, while some production is exported.
Determining the assessable value required the company to ascertain production costs and establish the dry metric tonne weight of the concentrate through laboratory testing. Consequently, the company had obtained permission for provisional assessment in April 2000, with assessments subsequently finalised annually.
For the financial year 2004–05, the company initially adopted a provisional assessable value of ₹5,050 per metric tonne. It progressively increased that value to ₹5,200, ₹5,875 and ₹6,500 per metric tonne in response to increased costs associated with plant expansion.
After completion of the annual costing exercise, the assessable value was determined at ₹5,333 per metric tonne, which the Department accepted during adjudication.
By an order dated November 30, 2005, the Deputy Commissioner finalised the annual duty liability at ₹33,65,43,811. The company, however, had already deposited ₹34,19,68,596, exceeding the final annual liability by ₹54,24,785.
Despite recording this overall excess payment, the authority raised a demand of ₹1,16,53,609 for alleged short-payment between April 1 and December 19, 2004, together with interest under Rule 7(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
The Department separately recognised excess payment during the remaining period, from December 20, 2004, to March 31, 2005, but declined to adjust it against the earlier shortfall.
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the company’s challenge in April 2006. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal subsequently dismissed its appeal on May 14, 2009, leading to the proceedings before the High Court.
The central question was whether the Department could finalise the assessable value using annual production costs but divide the same financial year into separate periods to recover a shortfall without accounting for excess duty paid during the remaining period.
The Court also examined whether the refund restrictions under Rule 7(6), including those concerning the passing on of duty incidence, prevented such adjustment. A further issue concerned interest payable by either side.
The assessee argued that the demand contradicted the final assessment itself: the annual liability was lower than the amount already deposited. It maintained that there was no statutory basis for isolating one portion of the financial year and refusing to account for payments made during the other.
The company emphasised that it sought adjustment of existing payments, rather than a cash refund.
The Department opposed adjustment on the ground that the recipient smelting units had already availed CENVAT credit of the duty paid on the concentrate.
It also relied on a September 14, 2005 letter in which the company stated that it would not claim a refund because the corresponding credit had been availed by its smelting units.
According to the Department, the company had not established that the incidence of excess duty had not been passed on. It therefore argued that the excess amount could neither be refunded nor adjusted against the demand.
Rejecting the Department’s approach, the High Court held that the method used to determine the assessable value must be applied consistently when calculating the corresponding duty liability.
Where final valuation rests on annual production costs, payments made throughout the relevant assessment period must be considered. The Department could not use annual costing to determine the value of the goods while selectively recognising only those periods that disclosed short-payment.
The Bench also recorded that the Department’s counsel could not identify any statutory provision authorising the disputed bifurcation without accounting for excess payments during the remainder of the same financial year.
However, the Court expressly limited its reasoning to the circumstances before it. It did not lay down a general rule that duty on every clearance must invariably be assessed annually. The decisive factors were the permitted provisional assessment and the use of an annual costing exercise to arrive at the final assessable value.
The Court drew support from the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. and the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling in Godrej Consumer Products Ltd., which addressed the need to consider the overall duty position when finalising provisional assessments.
The High Court held that Rule 7(6) governs how an amount determined to be refundable is dealt with. That question is distinct from whether duty already deposited must be counted when determining the amount still payable.
The company’s statement that it would not seek a refund, and the fact that its smelting units had availed CENVAT credit, did not change the nature of the relief sought.
Allowing adjustment would not involve paying the excess amount back to the company. It would ensure that the Department recovered only the duty, if any, remaining after accounting for payments already made.
The Court reasoned that accepting the Department’s interpretation would allow it to retain excess duty while simultaneously recovering an alleged shortfall as though the excess payment had never occurred. That would not reflect the actual liability established by the final assessment.
The Court rejected the company’s claim for interest on the excess duty because no refund was being ordered.
At the same time, it held that the Department must give effect to the adjustment before determining interest on the alleged short-payment. If adjustment establishes that no further duty was payable, interest cannot be recovered on a shortfall created by treating the two portions of the year separately.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the ₹1,16,53,609 demand and consequential interest, subject to adjustment in the company’s duty account.
The Department was directed to carry out the consequential exercise in accordance with law, considering the final annual liability and the total duty already deposited. If the records confirm the figures recorded in the final assessment, no further duty will be recoverable against the disputed demand.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
