9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a contract with Security Paper Mill, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, Hoshangabad (M.P.) on 6-10-98 for supplying 16 M.T. of Security Thread at the rate of Rs. 4095/- per kg. The break up of the price was as follows :- " BREAK UP OF PRICE Basic price : Rs. 3,500.00 per kg. Discount 10% : Rs. 350.00 Rs. 3,150.00 Excise Duty 25% : Rs. 787.50 C.S.T. 4% : Rs. 157.50 Total Rs. 4,095.00" While the appellant was thus supplying Security Thread as per the terms of the above contract fresh tender was invited in April, 1994 for future period. The lowest tender ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not entitled to the refund of any amount as claimed by them as the payment had been made by operating Fall Clause as per the terms of the contract between the parties. The buyer M/s. Security Paper Mill thereafter made payment in respect of the consignments received after 28-7-99 at the rate of Rs. 3,011.00 per kg. The appellant, therefore, made an application before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise for refund of alleged excess duty paid by it on following two grounds :- (1) The material had been supplied at the rate of Rs. 3,150/- per kg. and the duty was paid at the rate of 24% ad valorem on this price. The price had been reduced subsequently to Rs. 2,445/- per kg. Therefore, excess duty was paid on the differential valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject goods under Chapter Heading 3920.36. 6. Before us the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has gravely erred in holding that this is not a case of reduction/revision of contracted price. According to him, the action on the part of the buyer in making payment at the rate of Rs. 3,011.00 per kg. for all the consignments after 28-7-99 would amount to a revision of the contracted price. He placed reliance on a decision of this Tribunal in Vidhya Packaging Industries Private Limited v. CCE, Allahabad, [2001 (130) E.L.T. 631 (T) = 2000 (39) RLT (CEGAT)] in support of the above contention. In this case, the assessee had made a declaration regarding the value of the goods when he filed the statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditions to any other party during the currency of this contract. (B) If at any time during the currency of this contract, the SELLER reduces the price of Special Security Thread or sells such threads to any other Party at a price lower than the price chargeable under this contract the SELLER shall forthwith notify such reductions or sale to the General Manager, Security Paper Mill, Hosangabad and the price payable under this contract for the Special Security Thread supplied after the date coming into force of such reduction or sale shall stand correspondingly reduced. (C) The SELLER shall furnish certification to this effect as and when and in the manner required by the General Manager, Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad to effe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court had held that once the assessee had 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 for payment of duty on that date and time and subsequent reduction in prices for whatever reason cannot be a matter of concern to the Central Excise Department in so far as the liability to payment of excise duty was concerned. It was further held that even if it is assumed that the roll back in the price of the tyres manufactured by the appellant was occasioned on account of the directive issued by the Central Government, that by itself without anything more, would not entitle the appellant to claim a refund on the price differential unless it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be so, the appellant is estopped from claiming refund on the ground of wrong classification. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the buyer in its letter dated 27-12-99 while referring to break up of the price has stated that excise duty is only at the rate of 18.4% and therefore, the appellant can contend that it has paid excess duty. We find no merit in this contention also. Admittedly, the appellant is resisting the reduction in price as reflected in the letter of his buyers dated 27-12-99 under other appropriate forum. Therefore, it cannot be permitted to take advantage of a portion of the same letter at the same time resisting the reduction in the basic price. 12. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
