1977 (3) TMI 154 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the inclusion of freight expenses in the assessable value by the Department was correct.
2. Whether the refund claims of the appellants were time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules.
3. Whether the appellants made a mistake of law in including post manufacturing expenses in the assessable value.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellants claimed a refund on the grounds that the assessable value approved by the Department included freight expenses, which they argued should have been excluded based on the Voltas judgment. The Asstt. Collector rejected the refund claims, stating that the prices in the relevant period included an element of freight not shown separately in the invoices, indicating a pattern of equalized freight. The appellants contended that transportation charges were included under the directions of the Superintendent of Central Excise, and they had lodged protests against this inclusion. However, the Appellate Collector found that the protests were not withdrawn and did not support the contention that the assessments were provisional. The issue was deemed closed as no appeal was filed against the Superintendent's order.

Issue 2:
Regarding the timeliness of the refund claims, the appellants argued that Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules did not cover cases where duty was paid by mistake. They relied on a judgment from the Patna High Court. However, the Appellate Collector noted that the appellants remained silent for over four years after their representation against the Superintendent's order, indicating acquiescence to the assessments made. Therefore, the refund claims were considered time-barred under the Central Limitations Law.

Issue 3:
The appellants claimed a mistake of law in paying duty on post manufacturing expenses. The Appellate Collector observed that the error of law was not apparent as there were differing interpretations on the inclusion of such charges. The appellants paid duty without protest or appeal against the Superintendent's order, indicating inadvertence rather than a mistake of law. The Appellate Collector rejected this plea and upheld the Asstt. Collector's order, stating that the inclusion of post manufacturing charges was not supported by the evidence presented.

In conclusion, the Appellate Collector upheld the Asstt. Collector's order and rejected both appeals, finding no merit in the appellants' contentions regarding the inclusion of freight expenses and post manufacturing charges in the assessable value.