2013 (3) TMI 208 - Commissioner - Central Excise

MRP Based Valuation - Claim of refund on the basis of Downward revision in MRP - SCN was issued proposing to reject the refund claim as there is no provision under Sec. 4A of the CEA, 1944 read with Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 to grant refund. - held that - Since a depot is defined as one of the places of removal, the department was demanding duty as and when there was higher duty on account of increase in MRP. In fact, in the instant case, there were such payments. In the same analogy, the appellant is seeking refund under Sec. 11B. Therefore, once the depot is treated as place of removal, and the department, in fact, is demanding duty in the case of increase in MRP and consequent duty increase, there is no justification to deny the refund of excess duty paid once the person seeking refund fulfills all the conditions. When the department extends its arms up to the depot price, the same facility is available to the appellant also as the principle of equity demands. The Central Excise laws work on the principle that what is due to the Govt. only to be demanded and what is not due is to be refunded once the test of unjust enrichment is passed. In view of the above legal position, the appellant is entitled to get refund subject to the provisions of Sec. 11B - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for refund due to downward revision of price of goods sold from the Depot.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by a manufacturer of Lubricant Oil and lubricating grease against the rejection of their refund claim by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant filed a refund claim due to a downward revision of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for their products held at various depots. The main contention was the eligibility for a refund in the case of a downward revision of price. The appellant argued that since duty could be demanded on an upward revision of price, they should be entitled to a refund for the excess duty paid due to the downward revision of price at the depots.

The Commissioner analyzed the provisions of Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, which allows for a refund of duty paid in excess. The Commissioner noted that the duty paid by the appellant was higher at the time of clearance from the factory, and the goods were subsequently sold at reduced MRP rates from the depots. The Commissioner emphasized that the duty collected from the ultimate customer should be deposited into the government account, and any excess payment should be refunded to the assessee, subject to the principle of unjust enrichment.

Furthermore, the Commissioner discussed the definition of 'place of removal' under Sec. 4 of the Central Excise Act, which includes a depot as one of the places from where excisable goods are sold after clearance from the factory. Since the department was demanding duty based on an increase in MRP at the depots, the Commissioner found no justification to deny the refund of excess duty paid by the appellant. The Commissioner held that the appellant was entitled to a refund under Sec. 11B, as the depot was considered a place of removal, and the appellant fulfilled all conditions for claiming the refund.

In conclusion, the Commissioner allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant's eligibility for a refund due to the downward revision of the price of goods sold from the Depot.