2010 (3) TMI 538 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - the refund claim has been rejected on the ground that appellant should have resisted reduction made by the purchaser in the price claimed by them and in fact lower authorities have gone to the extent of saying that this dispute should have been settled through Arbitration. Held that- refund claim not rejected on ground that assessee should have entered into prolonged litigation arbitration. Duty liable to be paid at transaction value on basis of price variation clause. Assessee s appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection based on price variation clause interpretation and duty payment calculation.

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad addressed the issue of a refund claim related to duty payment arising from a price variation clause in an agreement for the clearance of a consignment to a purchaser. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of conductors, initially paid duty based on their calculation at the time of clearance. Subsequently, the appellant issued a supplementary invoice and paid additional duty, resulting in an excess payment due to the purchaser's disagreement with the price variation claimed by the appellant. The dispute centered around a refund claim for the excess duty paid. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim, suggesting that the appellant should have contested the purchaser's reduction in the claimed price and potentially pursued arbitration. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found that the lower authorities had acted arbitrarily and against the law. The Tribunal emphasized that the crucial aspect to consider was whether the refund claim was admissible under the law, rather than advising the appellant on their course of action. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision to support the appellant's eligibility for a refund when a price variation clause is present in the agreement. It clarified that duty is payable based on the transaction value for each removal, and in cases of price variation, the transaction value should be determined accordingly. The Tribunal concluded that the refund claim should not be rejected based on the expectation of prolonged litigation or arbitration and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant.