2016 (11) TMI 1210 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of excise duty - goods inspected by the agency of the buyer - Held that - it appears that the inspection charges are mandatory. The appellant had made claims for the reimbursement for the inspection charges time to time. It is the mistake of the assessees Accountant who had not included this amount to be reimbursed by the buyer - It may be mentioned that the appellant cannot claim advantage of his own mistakes as per the maxim COMMODUM EX INJURIA SUA MEMO HABERE DEBET In the instant case, the inspection charges and excise duty were rightly levied. But due to the mistake of the assessee-appellant, the same were not recovered from the buyer of the goods - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of excise duty on goods inspected by the buyer's agency.
2. Reimbursement of inspection charges by the buyer.
3. Mistake in not recovering excise duty and inspection charges from the buyer.
4. Claiming advantage of own mistakes by the appellant.
5. Decision on the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the question of whether excise duty is applicable on goods inspected by the buyer's agency. The appellant contended that as per a precedent, excise duty is not applicable on such goods. However, the Revenue argued citing a Supreme Court decision that the excise duty was rightly charged. The Tribunal noted that the inspection charges were mandatory as per the tender terms and that the appellant had claimed reimbursement for these charges. The Tribunal found that the inspection charges and excise duty were rightly levied on the goods.

2. The issue of reimbursement of inspection charges by the buyer was also considered. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had made claims for reimbursement of inspection charges, but due to a mistake by the appellant's Accountant, this amount was not included to be reimbursed by the buyer. The Tribunal highlighted the principle that one cannot claim advantage of their own mistakes, citing a legal maxim and a relevant case law to support this position.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that despite the correctness of levying inspection charges and excise duty, the mistake of the appellant in not recovering these amounts from the buyer was a crucial error. The Tribunal held that the appellant could not escape the consequences of their mistake and should have ensured the recovery of these charges from the buyer of the goods.

4. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal concluded that there was no valid reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower authorities. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant was dismissed, affirming the decision on the applicability of excise duty, reimbursement of inspection charges, and the mistake in not recovering these amounts from the buyer.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning behind dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee-appellant.