TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri R. Muralidhar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Ganesh Haavanur, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Electrical Aluminium Cables and supply of cables to various power distribution companies. In respect of two purchase orders relating to supply of cables to M/s. Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh dated 21-2-2009, the purchase orders provided had price variation formula with base date as on 1-5-2008 with 30% ceiling on positive side and no ceiling on the negative side. Accordingly, the supplies were made and invoices were raised after payment of Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 5,77,654/-. However, the purchaser issued a letter dated 12-5-2009 starting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (CER) was not followed and refund should not have been granted. Ld. Counsel relied upon the decisions in the case of C.C.E., Hyderabad v. Premier Explosives Ltd. [2008 (226) E.L.T. 729 (Tri. - Bang.)], ECE Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad [2009 (237) E.L.T. 428 (Tri. - Bang.)] and C.C.E., Mangalore v. Keltech Energies Ltd. [2008 (232) E.L.T. 306 (Tri. - Chennai)] to submit that even when there was no provisional assessment if there is a downward revision of prices, refund is allowable provided claim has been filed within the time limit. On the other hand, ld. SDR relied upon the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Maharashtra Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. v. CESTAT, Mumbai [2010 (25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the learned Advocate are very relevant. When there is price variation clause in the agreement when the price increases the respondent normally discharges the differential duty due to the government. The same treatment has to be meted out to the respondent in terms of the various decisions of this Tribunal and the other Tribunal. The MRF decision of the Supreme Court has already been distinguished by the Tribunal in the case of Keltch Energies case and also in the case of Utkal Polyweave Indus. by the Calcutta Tribunal. We do not find any merit in the Revenue s appeal. The impugned order is legal and proper. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal of Revenue. 5. As regards the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court relied upon by the ld. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
