2007 (10) TMI 67 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claimed on the ground that purchase order price is less than the actual value (considered for payment of duty) Price actually collected should be accepted as transaction value not the price shown in invoices so refund cannot be denied on ground of subsequent price reduction

Summary

Issues:
Refund of duty paid on higher value than purchase order price.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns a dispute over the refund of duty paid by the respondent on clearances of finished goods. The respondent cleared goods at a value higher than the purchase order price, resulting in the payment of duty on the higher value. The respondent sought a refund based on the discrepancy between the purchase order price and the actual value used for duty payment. Initially, the refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority, but the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision. The Revenue, dissatisfied with this outcome, appealed, arguing that subsequent price reductions do not warrant a refund. The Revenue cited legal precedents to support their position.

The respondent presented certificates from the Range Superintendent of Central Excise and a Chartered Accountant to validate that the actual amount received matched the purchase order value. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) found in favor of the respondent, emphasizing that the price indicated in the purchase order was deemed final, and any subsequent adjustments did not alter this fact. The Commissioner also noted that the duty incidence was not passed on to the buyer, thereby justifying the refund claim. The absence of evidence to contradict these findings supported the Commissioner's decision.

Regarding the case laws referenced by the Revenue, the tribunal observed that they pertained to a different legal framework under Section 4. Currently, Section 4 considers transaction value as the basis for duty calculation, aligning with the invoice value used by the respondent for duty payment. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no merit in their arguments. The decision upheld the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s ruling in favor of granting the refund to the respondent, emphasizing the absence of unjust enrichment and the correctness of the refund claim based on the transaction value principle.