9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r from the finalization of provisional assessment but in this case he has claimed the refund within one year from the date of clearance of goods since the assessments were not provisional. Hon’ble Supreme Court had held in the case of MRF Ltd [1997 (3) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] that post clearance reduction in price does not evade the duty liability - It is found that this judgment was passed in the context of the valuation of goods under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act prior to 01.07.2000. During the relevant period, value was the normal price, i.e., price at which such goods were ordinarily sold in the course of whole sale trade at the time and place of clearance - the ratio of the judgement do not apply to the facts of pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n terms of the contract. Therefore they filed refund claims for the excess duty paid. These refund claims were rejected by the lower authorities relying on the case law of MRF Ltd [1997 (92) ELT 309 (SC)] in which the Hon ble Supreme Court held that once the assessee has cleared the goods on the classification and price indicated by him at the time of removal of the goods from the factory gate, the assessee becomes liable to payment of duty on that date and time and not on the price reduced at subsequent date and further observed that the subsequent fluctuation in the prices of the commodity have no relevance whatsoever, so far as the liability to the excess duty is concerned. This judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court was followed in sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the factory gate, subsequent fluctuations of prices will not matter as far as the valuation rules are concerned as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MRF Ltd (supra). It is his contention that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant was prevented from opting for provisional assessment by the department. If the final price is not known at the time of clearance, assessee could have sought and opted for provisional assessment. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs Oriental Explosives P Ltd [2008 (222) ELT 205 (Bom.)] in which the Hon ble High Court of Bombay held that although assessment is not provisional, that by itself, could not dis-entitle assessee from claiming refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no question of varying that on basis of price variations post clearance. It is also found that this judgment was passed in the context of the valuation of goods under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act prior to 01.07.2000. During the relevant period, value was the normal price, i.e., price at which such goods were ordinarily sold in the course of whole sale trade at the time and place of clearance. There was paradigmatic shift in the valuation under Central Excise Act in 2000 when the valuation has been changed to the value on each removal of goods shall be the price at which the goods are sold by the assessee . In other words, the concept of normal price has been replaced with the transaction price. There are no longer any pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
