2004 (11) TMI 150 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim due to incorrect assessment of duty payments based on approved price lists and appeal against rejection of revised price list for retrospective approval.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking manufacturing petroleum products, filed price lists for approval before Central Excise Authorities during the relevant period. The declared prices for Benzene and Toluene were approved by the officers. However, a mistake occurred as the approved prices were consolidated sale prices including taxes, but the appellant assessed consignments at these prices and paid duty. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund application as the duty amounts paid exceeded the duty collected from buyers. The claim was rejected by the Central Excise Authorities, stating that the duty payment was as per the approved price list. The first appeal (E/305/02) relates to the rejection of this refund claim.

The appellant also submitted a revised price list to clarify that the approved prices were cum-duty prices, not ex-duty prices. This revised price list was rejected on the grounds of retrospective approval not being permissible. The second appeal (E/208/99-NB(A)) is against this rejection. The Revenue contended that since assessments were made based on approved price lists and retrospective approval is not allowed, there was no error in the original payments made. They argued that the appellant could not challenge the assessments under refund provisions as no appeal was filed against the approved price lists.

In response, the appellant's counsel argued that the error lay in the assessment and payment of duties based on the approved price lists, not in seeking a revision of approved prices. They emphasized that the declared prices, approved by the authorities, were cum-duty prices, and assessments should have been made accordingly. The Tribunal examined the documents and agreed with the appellant that the issue was an error in assessments and duty payments, not a challenge to approved price lists through refund claims.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Deputy Commissioner to verify the refund claims and make payments accordingly. The Tribunal noted that unjust enrichment did not apply as duty payments exceeded the duty realized from buyers. As a result, the issue of retrospective approval of price lists became irrelevant, leading to the dismissal of the second appeal (E/208/99-A). The Tribunal instructed the Deputy Commissioner to issue the final refund order within eight weeks from the date of the Tribunal's order.