2008 (7) TMI 682 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Recovery of Erroneous refund - scope of SCN - whether subsequent reduction in price of the goods, after the clearance of the same would result in lowering the assessable value of the goods, thus making the assessee entitled to refund claim? - Held that - It is not a case where the show cause pertained to a different issue and allegation, whereas the impugned order is passed in respect of altogether different issue and allegation, in which case, it cannot be said that the impugned orders have travelled beyond the show cause notice - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether subsequent reduction in price of goods after clearance would lower the assessable value for refund claim.

Analysis:
The central issue in this appeal was whether a subsequent reduction in the price of goods after their clearance would impact the assessable value, entitling the assessee to a refund claim. Both lower authorities concluded that such a price reduction post-clearance would not alter the assessable value determined at the time of clearance. This decision was supported by a precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MRF Ltd. v. C.C.E. The Court ruled that price fluctuations after clearance do not affect the liability for excise duty, emphasizing that a price reduction post-clearance does not impact the duty liability.

The appellant's representative acknowledged the legal position but argued that the refund initially granted was now being sought for recovery due to erroneously granted refund. The appellant contended that the authorities had exceeded the scope of the show cause notice by deciding the matter on its merits rather than solely on the basis of unjust enrichment, the ground cited in the notice for recovery.

Upon reviewing the arguments and hearing the Revenue's representative, the Tribunal found that the dispute revolved around the refund granted to the appellant, which the Revenue deemed erroneous. While the show cause notice cited unjust enrichment as the reason for recovery, the Tribunal emphasized that the refund's admissibility on merit needed to be assessed first. The lower authorities correctly examined the merit of the refund claim, as the issue of unjust enrichment becomes irrelevant if the refund is not admissible on its merits, as per the precedent set by the Apex Court in the MRF Ltd. case. The Tribunal clarified that the law as established by the Apex Court must be applied to the specific case's facts. Since the show cause notice and the impugned order both addressed the recovery of an erroneously granted refund, the lower authorities' application of the law from the MRF decision was deemed appropriate. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, emphasizing that the subsequent reduction in the price of goods after clearance does not impact the assessable value for a refund claim, in line with the legal precedent established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.