Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 367 - MADRAS HIGH COURTFinalization of the provisional assessments - refund claim on LPG cylinders supplied to oil companies - assesses have paid differential duty on cylinders consequent upon enhancement of price after clearance - Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 2nd respondent is right in upholding the order of the Appellate Authority, which ordered finalisation of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also pursuing refund claim thereafter, as the 1st respondent had not requested for provisional assessment for the relevant period, as envisaged in Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- assessment in the case of the first respondent/assessees was not provisional. In this regard, the assessees’ letter dated March 25, 1999 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chrompet Division acknowledging the receipt of provisional Assessment order for the financial year 1997-98 stated that such provisional assessment has been resorted to for price variation clause contained in the contract received from Oil Corporations and further stated that they have been paying the differential duty whenever required at the time of raising the supplementary invoices and approaching the Range Officer, Palavakkam requesting issuance of 57(E) certificate for differential duty payment. Further the assessee informed that as the price variation is regular to those goods, the provisional assessment need not be resorted to and undertook to pay differential duty in such cases wherever supplementary invoices are raised periodically in future. Assessment in both these cases related to 1997-98 and from the order passed by the Original Authority, it is seen that the final assessment was made in the year 1998 itself. Therefore, the claim for refund is wholly barred by limitation and the benefit of sub-clause (eb) of Explanation 5 to Section 11B of the Act claimed by the assessee was rightly denied by the Original Authority. However, the Tribunal under misconception that the assessments were provisional and taking into consideration that there are earlier decisions of other Tribunals, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. claim for refund made by the respondents/assessees is barred by limitation - Decided in favour of Revenue.
|