2017 (8) TMI 1216 - AT - Central Excise

Price Variation Clause - Refund claim of duty excess paid - rejection on the ground of Time Bar - Held that - there is no case of goods returned to make up the fresh goods, manufactured and cleared by the appellant as such. The relevant date will be the date of duty payment, as provided in clause (f) to explanation (B) under Section 11B of the Act - there is no question of unjust-enrichment, as the buyers of the goods have not paid anything more than the settled/reduced price of goods, including reduced amount of duty - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to re determine the amount of refund by taking the relevant date as date of duty payment - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to refund of duty paid.
2. Rejection of refund claim as time-barred.

Analysis:
Entitlement to refund of duty paid:
The appellant, a manufacturer of electrical Transformers, filed refund claims against the excess duty paid to the Government due to price variation clauses in contracts with customers DVVNL and MVVNL. The revenue raised concerns of unjust enrichment regarding the refund claims. Adjudication led to partial rejection and partial allowance of the claims, based on the relevant date of entry of defective/damaged transformers for repair or remake in the factory. The appellant challenged the relevant date determination, arguing for a different timeline based on duty payment upon removal of repaired goods. The Tribunal found that the repaired/remade goods did not constitute goods returned for remaking, as they were old or damaged transformers sent for reconditioning using new components. Consequently, the relevant date for limitation was the date of duty payment, not the entry date for repair, as per Section 11B of the Act. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, remanding the case for a reevaluation of the refund amount based on the date of duty payment.

Rejection of refund claim as time-barred:
The issue of interest under Section 11B (b) was also addressed, with the Tribunal noting the appellant's delay in submitting relevant documents, leading to a denial of interest. Despite an ex-parte disposal due to the appellant's absence, the Tribunal considered the arguments and evidence presented. It concluded that the appellant's case did not involve unjust enrichment, as customers had paid the settled/reduced price inclusive of reduced duty amounts. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the refund amount within three months from the order's receipt, also instructing the grant of any balance refund with interest promptly.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI highlights the issues of entitlement to refund of duty paid and the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred. The detailed examination of the facts, legal arguments, and Tribunal's decision provides a thorough understanding of the case and its implications.