Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1593 - CESTAT MUMBAIClandestine removal of goods - manufacture of Industrial Valve - descriptions of the goods are not tallying between the invoice and the purchase order - Held that: - I find that both the lower authorities rejected the refund claim only on the ground that some of the reference and description of goods are not tallying between the invoice and the purchase order issued by the customer. However, the facts that the price was charged on higher side and excess duty paid thereupon is not under dispute. I find that to avoid any doubt or confusion on the fact that whether the price was charged wrongly on higher side and accordingly excess duty was paid, the customer M/s. BPCL issued a letter where it was mentioned that the actual unit price for the item is ₹ 36495 but the appellant has wrongly invoiced at ₹ 3,64,495/-. Accordingly, corresponding value and the duty was also charged on the higher side. However, the customer have corrected the invoice and the payment towards that invoice No. 439 dt. 30.4.2009 was made as per the reduced/corrected amount. I have also observed that in the payment advice issued by M/s. BPCL, it is clearly mentioned therein that against the invoice No. 439 dt. 30.4.2009 the payment of only ₹ 6,76,732/- was made, as against the value shown in the invoice i.e. ₹ 14,15,748/-. All the doubt stands cleared that the appellant has charged higher amount inadvertently and accordingly the excess duty was also paid. With the above factual position, I do not find any reason why the refund should not be granted to the appellant for the excess paid duty. As per my above discussion, I am of the considered view that the appellant is entitled for the refund in respect of excess paid duty. I therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
|