9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (3) TMI 684 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Refund claims rejection based on lack of evidence of freight deduction from sale prices. Interpretation of Section 4(2) of the Central Excise Act for assessable value determination. Analysis: The appeals challenged the rejection of the appellant assessee's refund claims due to the absence of evidence indicating that the sale prices included deductions for freight charges. The goods were initially cleared provisionally, with the final assessment involving the claim for deduction towards freight from the sale prices, leading to duty refunds. The lower authorities dismissed the claim citing insufficient evidence in the sale invoices to support the deduction. The Order-in-Appeal highlighted that the appellant did not disclose that the prices in the invoices included transport charges, leading to the rejection of the claimed deductions. The Range Superintendent's findings were upheld, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the deduction claims. The appellant contended that the rejection of the refund claim was unfounded both legally and factually. They argued that Section 4(2) of the Central Excise Act allowed for the deduction of freight charges from the goods' price to determine the assessable value. Additionally, they presented evidence of freight payments made for transporting the goods, contradicting the rejection basis. Citing a precedent involving Goa Paints and Allied Products, the appellant argued that the absence of separate freight indication in the invoice should not preclude the deduction. The Tribunal's decision emphasized that the Act did not mandate upfront disclosure of freight amounts in invoices, supporting the deduction provision under Section 4(2). Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's claim, meeting both legal and factual standards. Consequently, the impugned orders rejecting the refund claims were overturned, and the appeals were allowed, granting the appellants entitlement to consequential relief.
|
