2000 (6) TMI 248 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of refund claim for freight, liquidated damages, and interest on receivables.
2. Permissibility of deductions for interest on receivables.
3. Eligibility of deduction for liquidated damages under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Remand for working out the actual amount of refund and completion of proceedings within three months.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of refund claim for freight, liquidated damages, and interest on receivables
The appellant's refund claim of Rs. 2,41,757 was denied. The appellant argued that expenses like freight, handling, and other costs incurred for delivery at the Thermal Power Stations should be deductible from the price received. They also claimed deduction for liquidated damages due to delivery delays and interest on receivables. The appellant contended that these deductions are legitimate as they make the price received equivalent to the price at the time of removal.

Issue 2: Permissibility of deductions for interest on receivables
The Departmental Representative argued that interest on receivables can only be deducted for the credit period, as per the decision in the Gomti Carbon case. They contended that the deductions claimed were not solely for the credit period but for the total delay in payment by the Electricity Board. The appellant refuted the unjust enrichment claim, stating that the excess duty paid was not reimbursed by the Electricity Board.

Issue 3: Eligibility of deduction for liquidated damages
The Tribunal held that deductions claimed for freight, handling charges, and interest on receivables were permissible. However, deductions for liquidated damages were not eligible under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as per the precedent set in the Bhartia Cutler Hammer Ltd. case.

Issue 4: Remand for working out the actual amount of refund
The Tribunal remanded the case to the original authority to calculate the actual refund amount. They directed the proceedings to be completed within three months, emphasizing that the question of unjust enrichment did not apply in this case. The remand proceedings were to focus solely on quantifying the refund amount.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed deductions for freight, handling charges, and interest on receivables but deemed deductions for liquidated damages ineligible. The case was remanded for the quantification of the refund amount, with a directive to complete the proceedings promptly.