Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 195 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of excess paid Central Excise Duty - price variation clause - denial on the ground that subsequent reduction of the value cannot be based to claim refund of duty already paid - Held that - Since on an identical issue for overlapping period, in the case of M/s Sri Laxmi Venkateswara Electricals Versus CC, CE & ST, Nellore 2017 (2) TMI 530 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , this Bench has taken a view in favour of the appellant, there is no reason for me to deviate from such a view taken by the Bench - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Eligibility for refund claim based on provisional assessment and subsequent reduction of value.
Eligibility for Refund Claim: The issue at hand was whether the appellant was eligible for a refund claim regarding the central excise duty paid in excess during the period of January 2013 to March 2013. The appellant had cleared goods to various Government Organisations under provisional assessment and sought a refund. The lower authorities had ruled against the appellant, stating that subsequent reduction of value could not be the basis for claiming a refund of duty already paid. However, the appellant referenced a previous Final Order by the same Bench in their favor for a similar issue for the period of February 2013 to June 2013. The presiding Member, after reviewing the previous order and finding it in favor of the appellant, concluded that there was no reason to deviate from that decision. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs. Conclusion: The appellate tribunal, in the absence of appearance by the appellant but considering the written submissions, analyzed the issue of eligibility for a refund claim in the context of provisional assessment and subsequent reduction of value. By referencing a prior decision by the same Bench in favor of the appellant for a similar issue, the presiding Member upheld the appellant's claim and set aside the lower authorities' decision. The judgment highlights the importance of consistency in decisions by the tribunal and the relevance of past rulings in determining the outcome of current cases.
|