2008 (4) TMI 632 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - rejection on the ground that the refund of duty arising out of different assessable values does not arise since the assessable value on the day of clearance is the correct assessable value on which the correct duty has been paid

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejection based on assessable values and non-challenge of assessment orders.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting refund claims by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the claims citing different assessable values and no refund arising from duty paid on correct assessable value. The assessable values differed for clearances to own depot and other oil companies under MOU. The Deputy Commissioner deemed the oil exchange not a sale transaction under Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, thus considering the higher assessable value for duty levy. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, adding that non-challenge of assessment orders barred refund, referencing a Supreme Court judgment. However, the Tribunal noted a precedent where transaction value was accepted as the selling price to other companies. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' grievance of lack of notice on the second ground of rejection. Consequently, the cases were remanded for a fresh decision, allowing the appeals by way of remand for further adjudication on all aspects, including unjust enrichment, by the original authority.

This judgment addresses the issues of refund claim rejection based on assessable values and the impact of non-challenge of assessment orders on refund eligibility. The Deputy Commissioner's decision was based on differing assessable values for clearances to own depot and other oil companies under MOU, deeming the oil exchange not a sale transaction. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this rejection, citing a Supreme Court judgment regarding non-challenge of assessment orders. However, the Tribunal referenced a precedent where transaction value was accepted as the selling price, contrary to the rejection grounds. The Tribunal also acknowledged the appellants' valid grievance of lack of notice on the second ground of rejection. As a result, the cases were remanded for a fresh decision by the original authority, allowing the appeals for further consideration on all aspects, including unjust enrichment, in accordance with the law.