2005 (1) TMI 148 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Whether the assessee is entitled to a refund of higher duty paid due to price variation clause in the agreement.

Summary:
In a batch of appeals, the revenue challenged the Original Impugned Orders (OIOs) dated 31-12-2002, questioning the entitlement of the assessee for a refund of excess duty paid. The core issue revolved around the agreement terms between the appellants and their suppliers, stipulating duty payment adjustments upon price refixation. The revenue contended that without provisional assessment, the refund claim was unjustified. However, the Commissioner acknowledged the timely filing of refund claims and the presence of a price variation clause in the agreement, directing authorities to grant refunds in accordance with Section 11B of the Act.

Upon thorough examination, the Appellate Tribunal found the Commissioner's analysis comprehensive and legally sound. The assessee, following contractual obligations with customers containing price variation clauses, sought refunds for excess duty payments. These claims pertained to invoices falling within the statutory time frame specified in Section 11B of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that provisional assessments were unnecessary as the revenue also demanded higher duty under similar price variation clauses for escalated prices. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the entitlement of the assessee to refunds based on the contractual terms and statutory provisions.