2017 (10) TMI 951 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of duty - supplementary invoices - Held that - there is no material on record based on which the courts below have drawn the adverse inference of any manipulation of showing less transaction value in the original invoices - facts stated by the appellant before the Revenue in the refund application and in reply to the show cause notice have not been found untrue nor any adverse material available on record before the court below - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection based on alleged manipulation of transaction value; Appeal against rejection of refund claim.

Issue 1: Refund Claim Rejection based on Alleged Manipulation of Transaction Value
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing Mixer Grinder Motors, had raised supplementary invoices due to an increase in raw material prices. However, the purchaser, M/s. Maya Appliances (P) Ltd., rejected the increased prices, leading the appellants to file a refund claim for Central Excise duty paid on the invoices. The authorities observed that the appellants had not provided any agreement supporting the price increase and that the value of the goods was initially declared less, resulting in the need for supplementary invoices. A show cause notice was issued, and the refund claim of ?50,987 was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appellant to approach the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Appeal Against Rejection of Refund Claim
The appellant contended that no facts on record were found to be wrong or disputed by the Revenue. The appellant's counsel argued that the courts erred in inferring manipulation of transaction value without evidence, highlighting a letter from M/s. Maya Appliances (P) Ltd. confirming the return of the supplementary invoices. The appellant sought to set aside the impugned order based on the lack of material supporting the adverse inference drawn by the lower courts. The Department, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, relied on the impugned order during the proceedings.

Judgment
After considering the contentions and facts, the Tribunal found no basis for the adverse inference drawn regarding the manipulation of transaction value in the original invoices. The appellant's statements and responses to the show cause notice were deemed truthful, with no adverse material on record. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, directing the adjudicating authority to grant the refund within sixty days along with applicable interest. The Tribunal appreciated the assistance provided by the appellant's advocate, Miss Stuti Saggi, as Amicus Curie during the proceedings.