Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 263 - AT - Central ExciseRefund - in terms of the Purchase Order dt. 22.09.2006, the appellants supplied 16 transformers declaring the value at Rs. 23,52,00,000/- and paid excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,84,78,720 - According to the Price Variation Clause, the prices of the goods can be increased or decreased subsequently based on the Price formula prescribed by India Electric and Electronics Manufacturers Association (IEEMA) - The prices were reduced by the buyer unilaterally in terms of the price variation clause contained in the purchase order - The certificate issued by PSEB clearly shows that excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,69,48,023/- has been reimbursed to the appellants against the excise duty paid was Rs. 3,84,78,720/- resulting in an excess payment of Rs. 14,44,529 - in case where the duty is paid provisionally under the Act or rules made thereunder the claim for refund can be lodged within a period of one year from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof - Since the price variation clause empowers the buyer to reduce the price subsequent to the clearance of the goods and actually the price is reduced, therefore, the manufacturer is entitle for refund of the difference between the amount actually paid and amount becoming payable in terms of modified price - Such a variation of price or lesser payment of price subsequent to the clearance of the goods either on account of some agreement between the manufacturer and the buyer which has no sanction under the statute dealing with the duty liability can be of no help to the assessee to claim refund Regarding contention about non applicability of principles of unjust enrichment - Merely because the manufacturer receives an amount lesser then what has been disclosed in the invoice issued at the time of clearance of goods and payment of duty that itself cannot construe to means that the manufacturer has not passed on the burden of excise duty on the customer - Such receipt of lesser amount could be for various reasons, being so, it cannot be said that the principles of unjust enrichment would not be applicable in relation to the cases of the type in the matter in hand - Decided against the assessee
|