2018 (1) TMI 293 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - rejection on the grounds that for non-payment of consideration by the buyer, no refund or reimbursement of duty can be done by the Department and also necessary supporting documents for the claims were not submitted by the appellants - Held that - Coal India Limited revised the price retrospectively from 01/01/2012. When the contract value is accepted as assessable value, the duty payment as per such assessment value only can be considered as liable duty. It is the claim of the appellant that they have paid excess duty over and above the normal applicable assessable value in terms of contract. This aspect has not been dealt with by the lower authorities, in correct prospective - Any duty remitted to the Government in excess of the liability towards such assessable value, is to be considered for refund. Submission of supporting documents - Held that - These documents are essential for the Department to verify the claim of the appellant. These documents will also help in determining the question of undue enrichment, if any, in the present case. Cases remanded back to the Original Authority for a fresh decision after examining the claims - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appellant's eligibility for refund of differential Central Excise duty on coal cleared due to non-payment by buyers and lack of necessary supporting documents.

Analysis:
The appeals revolved around the appellant's claim for a refund of differential Central Excise duty on coal cleared by them, as the buyers did not honor the revised higher price invoices. The Original Authority and the Appellate Authority rejected the claims citing non-payment by buyers and lack of supporting documents. The appellants based their claim on the revised price of coal determined by Coal India Limited, which led to a discrepancy in the duty paid. The Tribunal noted that the duty payment should align with the correct assessable value as per the contract, and any excess duty paid should be eligible for a refund.

The Tribunal highlighted the importance of supporting documents for verifying the appellant's claim, including invoices, payment details, reconciliation between seller and buyer, duty payments, and evidence of non-receipt of invoiced amounts. These documents were deemed essential for the Department to assess the claim accurately and determine any undue enrichment. The lack of these documents was a significant reason for the rejection of the claims by the lower authorities.

In the judgment, the Tribunal remanded the cases back to the Original Authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the claims based on the correct assessable value and the realization of payments. The appellant was granted the opportunity to present their case adequately, and the Original Authority was instructed to expedite the decision within three months due to the prolonged pendency of the claims. Overall, the appeals were allowed for remand to reevaluate the refund claims based on the clarified criteria and the submission of necessary supporting documents.