2004 (6) TMI 105 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Refund claim rejection due to absence of provisional assessment and subsequent reduction in prices.

Summary:
1. The appeals stemmed from the rejection of the refund claim of the appellants based on the absence of provisional assessment and the argument that subsequent price reductions cannot be grounds for refund. The duty payment was deemed to be based on the prices quoted in the invoices at the time of factory clearance, as per Rule 173C(2), leading to the rejection of the claim.

2. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was established that once prices are fixed at the time of goods removal from the factory, the assessee is liable for duty payment at that specific time, regardless of any subsequent price reductions. This interpretation was supported by a Supreme Court judgment, emphasizing that the assessee's duty liability is determined by the prices and classification declared at the time of goods removal, irrespective of later price adjustments. Consequently, the rejection of the refund claim was upheld based on these legal precedents.

3. The appellants' counsel cited a contradictory judgment by the Tribunal in another case, which did not consider the Supreme Court ruling mentioned earlier. However, the revenue withdrew its appeal against this judgment, indicating a lack of finality in its decision. Given the inconsistency with the Supreme Court's stance in the MRF Ltd. case, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeals, aligning with the legal principles established in prior cases.