9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (10) TMI 376 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim on the basis of supplementary invoice - whether provisional assessment - As the lower appellate authority has rightly held that the refund claim has been filed beyond period of one year from the date of supplementary invoices is correct view.
Issues: Denial of refund claim on the ground of limitation
Analysis: The case involved appeals filed by the appellants seeking a refund claim which was denied on the basis of being barred by limitation. The appellants were suppliers of electrical transformers with an escalation clause in their contract. They initially raised invoices at the time of supply, then issued supplementary invoices due to price variation as per the escalation clause, and paid duty on them. Subsequently, the buyers deducted an amount from the supplementary invoices, leading the appellants to seek a refund of duty on the deducted amount. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim stating it was filed beyond one year from the issue of the supplementary invoices. The advocate for the appellants argued that the limitation period should not apply in this case as the price was not finalized until payment was received from the buyers due to the escalation clause. He relied on a case law to support his contention. However, upon careful consideration, the tribunal found that the contention was not acceptable. The tribunal noted that the assessment became final when the supplementary invoices were issued, as the appellants did not request provisional assessment. The tribunal distinguished the case law cited by the advocate, where prices were reduced upon issuing supplementary invoices, leading to a deemed provisional assessment, which was not the situation in the present case. Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision that the refund claim was indeed filed beyond the one-year period from the date of the supplementary invoices. Consequently, the appeals were rejected, and no interference was deemed necessary based on the facts presented.
|
