9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1171 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - the manufacturer did not claim exemption, whereas the appellant, the customer claims refund on the basis of exemption notification - Whether an assessment made by the manufacturer can be changed by way of a refund claim filed by the customer? - Held that - It is observed that similar issue was decided by CESTAT Delhi in the case of Inalsa Appliances Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Delhi-IV, Faridabad 2004 (6) TMI 463 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - In the case juicers were manufactured by M/s.AAR AAR Plastics and received by Appellant M/s. Inalsa Appliances Ltd. Refund claim in the relied upon case was also filed by M/s.Inalsa Appliances Ltd. when the manufacturer did not challenge the assessments and it was held in the case that In absence of any excess payment of duty, the question of the appellants filing a refund claim does not arise. Respondent herein is not eligible to refund claim when the original manufacturer has not sought exemption of the said Notification. It is also the case of the department that Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 is a conditional Notification which can be seen to have been fulfilled only at the time of clearance of the goods from the manufacturer s end - refund claim not allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
Issues:
1. Admissibility of refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Whether an assessment made by the manufacturer can be changed by a refund claim filed by the customer. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dated 21.03.2007, wherein the first appellate authority held that the refund claim filed by the Respondent was admissible under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Respondent, a state Govt. department, was not the original manufacturer of the goods in question, Ductile Iron Pipes. The Revenue argued that any classification or rate of duty made by the manufacturer cannot be changed at the recipient's end. Citing legal precedents, the Revenue contended that the assessment of goods cannot be challenged by the receivers if not challenged by the manufacturer. The case law of Inalsa Appliances Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Delhi-IV, Faridabad was relied upon to support this argument. 2. The main issue in this case was whether an assessment made by the manufacturer could be altered through a refund claim filed by the customer. The Tribunal referred to a similar case decided by CESTAT Delhi involving juicers manufactured by M/s. AAR AAR Plastics and received by the Appellant. It was held in that case that the customer was not eligible for a refund claim when the original manufacturer did not challenge the assessments. The Tribunal emphasized that the right to claim a refund arises only if there is an excess payment of duty, which was not the case here. The Tribunal also noted that the Notification under consideration was conditional and had to be fulfilled at the time of clearance by the manufacturer. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal and restored the Order-in-Original, allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the Respondent was not eligible for a refund claim as the original manufacturer had not challenged the assessments. The decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, emphasizing that a customer cannot challenge the assessment of goods manufactured and cleared by a third party. The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of adherence to legal provisions and conditions for claiming refunds under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
|
