2018 (2) TMI 1488 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - excise duty paid in excess - price variation clause - case of appellant is that their claim was not examined properly - Held that - There is no doubt that the appellant was to receive, as consideration, a lesser amount than that on which the duties were initially computed and paid and the contract price had not been registered with the jurisdictional authorities to acquire sanctity from which no deviations could be permitted; that was but a provision in the commercial agreement which is not germane to the general provisions of valuation, viz., the transaction value - On a perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, it is seen that no attempt has been made to ascertain the veracity of the claim of the appellant that a duty higher than that mandated by law had been paid. Such an ascertainment would require an exercise akin to assessment. The records do not bespeak of such. An application for refund is not to be discarded by reference to any one infirmity but is required to be examined in its entirety for determination if the duties not sanctioned by law has been collected and to remedy any breach thereof - the refund claim restored to the original authority to examine all aspects after giving an opportunity to the appellant - appeal restored.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund of excess excise duty paid due to miscalculation of applicable customs duties on import of 'markers' for 'oil marketing companies' under an agreement.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund of excess excise duty
The dispute in this case revolves around the refund claim of excise duty amounting to ?19,20,362, allegedly overpaid in September 2006 due to a miscalculation of customs duties on the import of 'markers' for 'oil marketing companies.' The appellant, a party in the agreement, contended that the price agreement included customs and excise duties, with customers entitled to any waiver of duties. The goods were transferred under stock transfer notes, and the appellant claimed a refund of the excess duty paid, which was denied by lower authorities.

Issue 2: Valuation of goods and contract price
The appellant argued that the contracted price was provisional and subject to change, affecting the computation of duty liability. They cited legal precedents to support their claim that no separate provisional assessment was required, relying on decisions by the High Courts and Tribunals. The appellant maintained that the reduction in price was not an attempt to evade duty but a pre-sale term adjustment, emphasizing the commercial agreement's terms.

Issue 3: Examination of refund claim
The Tribunal noted that the claim for refund stemmed from a difference in the valuation of goods, where the price was lowered after clearance, resulting in higher duty payments. The original authority held that the contract price satisfied the requirements of the Central Excise Act, negating the need for transaction valuation rules. However, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to verify the appellant's claim of overpayment, necessitating an assessment akin to ascertain the veracity of the duty paid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' decision and directed the refund claim to be re-examined comprehensively. Emphasizing the obligation to rectify any duty collection not sanctioned by law, the Tribunal highlighted the need for a thorough examination of the refund claim. The judgment underscored the importance of assessing the claim in its entirety and providing the appellant with an opportunity to present their case.