2017 (11) TMI 823 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - price variation clause - rejection on the ground that transaction value adopted at the time and place of removal cannot be reduced at a later date for any reason and also that the assessments are not provisional - Held that - the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mauria Udyog Ltd. Vs. CCE 2006 (8) TMI 49 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT has held that when the goods are cleared not on provisional basis, then subsequently reduction of price could not be made foundation for seeking refund u/s 11B of the CEA - refund rightly rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejection based on differential duty payment due to price revision.

Analysis:
The appellant, a PSC poles manufacturer, filed refund claims for differential duty paid after price revision. The respondent rejected the claims, stating that transaction value at removal cannot be reduced later, and assessments were not provisional. The appellant argued that due to a price variation clause, the final prices were lower than those on which duty was paid. The appellant sought refunds based on the final prices per the price variation clause.

The appellant's counsel argued that the rejection lacked consideration of facts and law, emphasizing final prices post-supply for duty payments. Citing various decisions, the counsel contended that the appellant was entitled to refunds due to downward price revisions. The counsel also argued that non-compliance with Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules does not render assessments final, citing relevant cases.

On the other hand, the respondent's representative defended the rejection, stating the appellants did not opt for provisional assessment. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the respondent argued that clearances during appeal pendency were not provisional without Rule 9B orders. The respondent also cited a Punjab & Haryana High Court case where non-provisional clearances precluded refunds based on subsequent price reductions.

Based on the upheld judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no faults in the rejected refund claims. The decision aligned with the precedent set by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court, affirming the rejection of the appellant's claims.