2017 (2) TMI 205 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - equalized freight - Held that - The lower authorities have examined the facts at length before arriving at the decision to reject the claim for refund. No evidence has been submitted that the equalized freight now clamed as excludible is not the equalized freight claimed as deduction for transfer from factory to depot which, in the light of the amendment supra, is liable to be included in assessable value - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of duty paid in excess on clearances; Interpretation of 'equalized freight' for deduction; Acceptability of evidence provided; Allegation of duties paid without basis.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a claim for refund of duty paid in excess on clearances from September 1996 to August 1997. The dispute revolved around the concept of 'equalized freight' claimed to have been incurred on the movement of goods from depot to the place of delivery. An amendment to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act in September 1996 extended the place of removal to the depot of the assessee, making transportation cost from factory to depot no longer deductible to determine the 'normal price.'

The appellant failed to establish that the claimed deduction was indeed the cost of movement from depot to the place of delivery. Both the original and appellate authorities found the evidence provided insufficient, including a certificate from a Chartered Accountant that did not attest to the rate of 'equalized freight.' Despite the absence of representation from the appellant, the Authorized Representative reiterated the contents of the impugned order during the hearing.

The appellant alleged that duties were paid on the freight amount without a valid basis, contending that Central Excise officers imposed it unfairly and lower authorities confirmed it without considering their submissions. However, upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument. The lower authorities thoroughly examined the facts before rejecting the refund claim. The appellant failed to provide evidence that the 'equalized freight' now claimed as excludable was different from the one claimed for transfer from factory to depot, which was deemed includible in the assessable value post-amendment.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision to dismiss the appeal, stating that there was no convincing proof to overturn the lower authority's findings. The grounds of appeal did not effectively challenge the lower authority's decision, merely repeating arguments previously addressed. Therefore, the appeal was deemed devoid of merit, and the impugned order was upheld without interference.