2000 (2) TMI 123 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a claim for refund of duty paid should be preferred within six months of the date of payment even if the goods were supplied pursuant to a contract which contained a clause for escalation of price.

Summary:

1. Legal Provisions and Interpretation:
The judgment discusses the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules, particularly Section 4, which provides for the valuation of excisable goods for charging duty. The Apex Court's interpretation in Union of India & Ors. v. Bombay Tyre International, 1983 E.L.T. 1896, is cited to explain the concept of "normal price" and its variations under different circumstances.

2. Procedure for Removal and Valuation:
The procedure for removal of excisable goods and determination of duty is detailed in Chapter VII-A, specifically u/r 173B, 173C, 173D, 173E, 173F, and 173G. These rules outline the requirements for filing declarations, determining assessable value, and maintaining accounts for duty payment.

3. Provisional Assessment and Final Assessment:
In cases where the exact value of goods cannot be determined due to price variation/escalation clauses, provisional assessment u/r 9B is required. The final assessment is made after the actual price is determined, and the duty provisionally assessed is adjusted accordingly.

4. Refund Claims and Limitation Period:
Refund claims are governed by Chapter VII-B, specifically u/r 173-S, which mandates compliance with Section 11B of the Act. Section 11B stipulates that refund claims must be filed within six months from the relevant date, with an exception for duties paid under protest.

5. Relevant Date for Filing Refund Claims:
The relevant date for filing refund claims varies based on whether the duty was paid under final or provisional assessment. For final assessments, it is the date of duty payment. For provisional assessments, it is the date of final assessment when the actual price is determined.

6. Legal Precedents and Erroneous Interpretations:
The judgment critiques the Tribunal's previous decision in Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1997 (95) E.L.T. 386, which held that the limitation period u/s 11B does not apply to contracts with price variation clauses. This interpretation is deemed incorrect, and the judgment emphasizes that Section 11B's limitation period applies universally, regardless of price variation clauses.

Conclusion:
The judgment concludes that the application for refund of duty must be filed within six months from the relevant date, as required by Section 11B of the Act. The Tribunal's earlier interpretation in Aluminium Cables Ltd. is overruled, and the reference is answered accordingly.