9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Chapter Sub-heading 8607.00 of CETA, 1985 to Indian Railways. The said goods were supplied pursuant to the Contract No.2005/RS(I)/174/1/1524 dated 4.4.2005 at the a price of 48,100/- per set. In the said Contract at Para 4, it is mentioned that in case lower rates are finalized, the same would be applicable for the supplies made in accordance with the amendment. By a letter dated 13.09.2006, the rates were reduced from Rs.48,100/- to Rs.37,853/- w.e.f. 15.5.2005. Consequently, they have filed a refund claim on 24.4.2007 claiming refund of Rs.60,107/-, i.e. within one year of the finalization of price. The said refund claim was rejected on the ground of time bar by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is, in July, 2005, but claimed the refund on 24.4.2007. He has submitted that fixation of final price on 13.9.06 for the goods cleared in July, 2005, cannot be the basis to treat the assessment as provisional under the Central Excise Act & the Rules made thereunder and accordingly, the relevant date be reckoned from the date of payment of duty and not finalization of price. In support of his contention, he has referred to the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Maharashtra Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Mumbai reported in 2010 (259) ELT 369 (Bom.) and the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of A. Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 2000 (117) ELT 583(Tribunal). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Act, 1944, it is clear that where excise duty was paid provisionally under the Act or the rules, the date of adjustment of duty after final assessment, should be the date for calculation of the period of one year for claiming refund of the excise duty paid. In any other case, the date of payment of duty, is prescribed to be relevant date for claiming the refund. In the present case, the duty was paid in July, 2005 on the basis of a provisional price, but not on the basis of provisional assessment under the Central Excise Act & Rules. I agree with the contention of the ld. A.R. for the Revenue that the Circumstances and procedure for resorting to provisional assessment has been prescribed under the Central Excise Rules which had not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
