2002 (10) TMI 154 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal against the Order-in-Appeal affirming the rejection of a refund claim for excess duty on LPG cylinders due to reduction in prices by oil companies.

Refund Claim and Time-Barred Issue:
The appellants filed a refund claim for excess duty paid on LPG cylinders due to price reduction by oil companies. Department claimed the refund was time-barred and lacked proof of borne amount. Show cause notice issued for rejection. Appellants argued prices were provisional, claim not time-barred, and not unjust enrichment. Deputy Commissioner held claim time-barred for a period and inadmissible for the rest due to final assessments.

Legal Arguments and Precedents:
Appellants argued entitlement to excess duty refund due to provisional prices agreed upon with oil companies. Cited judgments supporting their claim. Department contended claim not maintainable due to lack of compliance with Rule 9B and referred to a Tribunal decision for support. Tribunal noted appellants never requested provisional assessment and assessments were final, leading to claim failure based on non-compliance with Rule 9B.

Apex Court Judgment and Tribunal Decisions:
Tribunal referenced Apex Court judgment stating duty liability remains despite subsequent price reductions unless agreed otherwise. Distinction made from a Tribunal decision where price reduction was involuntary. Tribunal rejected appellants' argument for reference to a Larger Bench, emphasizing precedence of Apex Court judgment. Upheld Commissioner's decision disallowing refund claim based on legal principles established by Apex Court and Tribunal's Larger Bench.

Final Decision:
Commissioner's order disallowing refund claim upheld, despite a time-barred issue. Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating the refund claim lacked merit based on legal precedents and non-compliance with Rule 9B. The initial filing date of the claim did not impact the decision as the claim was not admissible on its merits.