9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 946 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - price variation clause - denial on the ground of time limitation - Held that - reliance placed in the case of MAHARASHTRA CYLINDERS PVT. LTD. Versus CESTAT, MUMBAI 2010 (8) TMI 235 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where it was held that no record to show that the clearances were effected on provisional basis, refund of duty not arises in self-assessment - refund rightly denied - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against rejection on grounds of time bar. Analysis: The appeals were filed against an order rejecting them as time-barred. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing transformers, had a price variation clause with customers based on monthly indices published by IEEMA. They raised supplementary invoices for differential value when the price index changed, paying applicable duty. Seeking a refund of excess payment due to a price reduction, the appellant's claim was rejected for being filed beyond the one-year limit from the duty payment date. The Commissioner (A) upheld this decision. The appellant argued that the order did not consider the agreement and evidence, claiming entitlement to a refund based on the price variation clause with KSEB. They contended that the excess duty payment was realized after IEEMA's price index publication. The appellant's counsel argued that the impugned order overlooked the agreement's terms and evidence, emphasizing the duty overpayment due to the price variation clause with KSEB. The appellant discovered the excess payment only post IEEMA's price index publication, seeking a refund based on this event. In contrast, the AR supported the order, citing precedents favoring the Revenue. These included decisions like MRF Ltd., Metal Forgings, and others, asserting that the issue was settled in favor of the Revenue. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found the issue settled in favor of the Revenue based on the cited precedents. Following the decisions' ratios, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appellant's appeal. The operative part of the order was pronounced on 20/11/2017.
|
