9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other provisions and conditionalities of section 11B of the Act - refund to be allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/00522/2010 - 43068/2017 - Dated:- 1-11-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant: Shri M. Karthikeyan, Adv, For the Respondent: Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) ORDER Per: Bench The facts of the case are that M/s. Sree Lakshmi Precision Tools, appellants hereinabove, are manufacturers of automobile components. They filed an application for refund of ₹ 55,500/- on 28.03.2008 on the ground that their customer did not honour the enhanced price of the goods charged by them through the supplementa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haran supports the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and we have gone through the facts. 5.1 Discernably, although supplementary invoices were issued by the appellants for enhancement of price of goods cleared earlier on payment of duty, such enhancement was not accepted by the customer. There is no allegation that the additional price indicated in the supplementary invoices, or for that matter, the duty discharged thereon, has been received by the appellants from their customers. 5.2 As per the law in force during the period of dispute, the duty liability is required to be discharged on the assessable value of the goods. In the normal course, such assessable value would be transaction value defined under section 4(3)(d) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities, the reason for rejection of refund is only on the grounds discussed above and not for the reason that refund claim being hit by time bar or unjust enrichment. 6. In arriving at this conclusion, we follow the ratio already laid down by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Amul Industries Pvt Ltd. (supra). The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:- 8. After going through the impugned orders and appreciating the submissions made by the learned DR, we find that the assessable value of a final product is required to be adopted in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The said provisions are reproduced below for better appreciation. Section 4. Valuation of excisable goods for purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is required to be treated as assessable value and the assessee would have been liable to pay duty on the same. However the question arises that where the efforts made by an assessee to realize some more amount from their customers towards the value of the goods sold by them do not succeed, whether the assessee is required to pay duty on such amount or not. The answer to the above question wold be an emphatic 'No'. 10. The ratio of the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MRF is not applicable to the facts of the present case in as much as it is not a case of subsequent reduction of price and claim of refund of duty paid on the transaction value adopted at the time of clearance of the goods. It is a case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
