2012 (11) TMI 689 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of differential in excise duty - denial of claim - appellant had received the lesser amount against price of the goods supplied. - Held that - The onus of proving the excess excise duty paid is on the appellant but the assessee here has failed to point out any evidence to substantiate his plea that the goods supplied through the relevant invoices were wrongly described as long length cables instead of short length cables. Merely because BSNL has made less payment, the claim for refund cannot be justified, because the levy of excise duty is based upon the transaction value at the time of clearance and not on the payment made by the purchasers. Thus rejection of refund claim is warranted - against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of excess excise duty paid due to discrepancy in cable length supplied.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order in appeal where the appellant's claim for refund was dismissed. The appellant contended that they had paid excise duty at a higher rate based on the invoices, but received less payment from the buyer due to a discrepancy in cable length supplied. The appellant sought a refund of the differential excise duty amount. The appellant argued that the higher excise duty was paid as per the invoice rates, and the lower payment received justified the refund claim.

The advocate for the appellant argued that the rejection of the claim was unjustified as the jurisdictional authorities failed to acknowledge the discrepancy in payment received by the appellant. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative supported the impugned order, stating that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support the refund claim.

In the judgment, it was emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the appellant to establish that the excise duty was overpaid due to an error. The appellant failed to present any evidence to substantiate the claim that the goods supplied were wrongly described in the invoices. The Tribunal noted that the levy of excise duty is based on the transaction value at the time of clearance, not on the payment received by the buyer. As there was a lack of evidence supporting the appellant's plea, the claim for refund was deemed unjustified. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to reject the refund claim and dismissed the appeal.