9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Exemption from excise duty on products sold under distributorship agreement. 2. Denial of refund of excise duty by Assistant Collector. 3. Interpretation of related person under Section 4 of the Act. 4. Refund of differential excise duty amount. 5. Denial of refund on various grounds by Assistant Collector. 6. Procedure for claiming refund under Rule 233-B of Central Excise Rules. 7. Liability to pay excise duty on refund amount under Section 4 of the Act. Analysis: 1. The petitioners, a Company manufacturing bulk drugs and other products, availed exemption from excise duty on goods sold under a distributorship agreement with M/s. Voltas Limited. The Central Excise Department sought to withdraw the exemption, leading to a series of legal proceedings challenging the duty calculation based on distributor prices. 2. The Assistant Collector initially denied a significant portion of the claimed refund, citing reasons such as specific product coverage, missing documentation, and lack of protest during duty payment. The denial was based on the belief that the revisional authority's relief only applied to one product, 'ROVIMIX,' and not all products supplied to M/s. Voltas Limited. 3. The crux of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of 'related person' under Section 4 of the Act concerning assessable value determination. The Revisional Authority held that M/s. Voltas Limited could not be considered a related person, leading to the refund claim by the petitioners for excess duty paid. 4. The Assistant Collector's refusal to grant the full refund amount was challenged on various grounds, including the failure to produce specific documentation, procedural compliance under Rule 233-B, and the interpretation of the duty payment status during the revision petition. 5. The Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments, highlighting errors in the Assistant Collector's reasoning for denying the refund. The Court emphasized that the duty paid under protest during the revision petition period should be refunded upon reversal of erroneous orders, irrespective of procedural technicalities. 6. Furthermore, the Assistant Collector's decision to deduct excise duty from the refund amount was deemed illegal, as the refund was sought due to the Department's erroneous recovery of excess duty. The Court clarified that the refund should not be subject to additional duty under Section 4 of the Act. 7. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring their entitlement to the full refund amount claimed. The Court noted that the Department had already deposited the refund amount with the Court, and the petitioners were allowed to withdraw it, discharging their undertaking. No costs were awarded in the case.
|
