9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 952 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - refund claim - packages were packed in bigger boxes of 15-20 packs - Revenue entertained a view that the appellant is required to assess the goods under Section 4 and has availed excess refund which is illegal - Held that - Th issue is decided in appellant own case of KRISHI RASAYAN EXPORTS PVT. LTD VERSUS CCE & ST, JAMMU & KASHMIR 2018 (5) TMI 1342 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , where it was held that The appellant have made packages for retail sale, they are legally bound to affix MRP of the said goods and thus appellant is entitled to refund claim. The appellant is entitled to refund claim of ₹ 29,39,465/- along with interest - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) under Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: The appellant, a manufacturer of Pesticides and Insecticides in Jammu & Kashmir, appealed against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to ?31,77,267 by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant's products were packed in smaller packs within bigger boxes, with MRP printed on them, paying duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 after availing abatement. A show cause notice challenged the MRP affixation and duty payment method, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The Tribunal's Final Order No. 62271/2018 dated 19.03.2018 previously upheld the appellant's correct duty payment method. The appellant sought limited relief for the refund claim of ?29,39,465 along with interest, forgoing the remaining claim. The Tribunal, based on its previous decision, allowed the refund claim and interest, disposing of the appeal accordingly. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the appellant's correct duty payment method under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's limited relief request for the refund claim of ?29,39,465 along with interest was granted, while the remaining claim was forgone by the appellant. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant, in line with the Tribunal's earlier ruling confirming the correctness of the duty payment method.
|
