2021 (12) TMI 424 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess duty paid - non-inclusion of freight in the assessable value - N/N. 1/10 dated 06.02.2010 - HELD THAT - It is a fact on record that at the time of clearance of goods, the appellant paid duty and claim refund thereof only, there is a Cenvat credit relying in Cenvat credit account unutilized due to return of goods already cleared by the appellant on payment duty. In these circumstances, the appellant is entitled for refund of duty paid in cash at the time of clearance of goods as held by this Tribunal in the case of SHREE NATH INDUSTRIES VERSUS C.C.E., JAMMU 2018 (5) TMI 195 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH . Refund of duty paid on transportation charges as the appellant is produced only of the sample invoices, but it is found that it is a fact on record that appellant has submitted invoices before the adjudicating authority as well as with the Commissioner (Appeals), in these circumstances, it is not required further re-examination. Further it is a claim of the appellant that they have not included the transportation charges in the assessable value which is evident from the invoices. The appellant is entitled to claim refund of duty paid on service tax paid on transportation charges - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim denial under Notification No. 1/10 dated 06.02.2010.
2. Excess duty payment and entitlement to refund.
3. Inclusion of freight in the assessable value for refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the denial of refund claim under Notification No. 1/10 dated 06.02.2010 due to excess duty payment and non-inclusion of freight in the assessable value of goods.

2. The appellant contended that they paid duty at the time of clearance and subsequently paid duty on returned goods, thus not resulting in excess duty payment. They claimed refund of the actual duty paid in cash, citing a precedent by the Tribunal in Shree Nath Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jammu.

3. Regarding the inclusion of freight in the assessable value, the appellant argued that they did not include freight based on the decision in Uflex Ltd Vs. CCE, Jammu. They submitted sample invoices to support their claim for refund on transportation charges.

4. The Authorized Representative opposed the appellant's contentions, stating that the appellant had taken Cenvat credit on returned goods, raising doubts about any subsequent duty payment. The AR also questioned the lack of sufficient records for verifying transportation charges, leading to a remand back to the adjudicating authority.

5. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, held that the appellant was entitled to a refund of duty paid in cash at the time of clearance, as per the precedent in Shree Nath Industries case. The Tribunal emphasized that the excess duty payment was not entitled to a refund, as it was a deposit and not actual duty payable.

6. The Tribunal further ruled that the appellant could claim a refund on transportation charges based on the invoices submitted, as they had not included these charges in the assessable value. Consequently, the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues raised, arguments presented by both parties, legal precedents cited, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.