Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 683 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of refund claim - price variations - Whether appellant is entitled to the refund claims where lower duty is payable on the goods cleared at a price, when subsequently a lower price is settled due to price variations - Held that:- it is not shown that clearance of the goods was made on provisional basis. Once this is so, reduction of price at a later date could not be made foundation for seeking refund - The provisions of law are very clear to the effect that the assessment of duty is to be on the basis of transaction value as disclosed in the invoices issued at the time of clearance of goods unless there is suppression of correct value in the invoices. It is nobody s case that there was any suppression of the correct value. Clearance was on the basis of provisional price. As regards the provision of law, there is no concept called provisional price. In case there is any doubt about the price of the goods at the time of clearance, then it is the duty of the manufacturer to seek provisional assessment. The provisional assessment is different from the provisional price. Any arrangement between the parties in relation to the price of the goods cannot override the statutory provision. Once the law requires that duty should be paid based on the price disclosed in the invoice issued at the time of clearance of the goods, mere subsequent reduction in price on the basis of some understanding arrived at between the parties cannot affect the duty liability in terms of the price disclosed in the invoice. Only exception to this is in a case where the manufacturer collects additional price by issuing a supplementary invoice. There is no provision under the law for issuance of supplementary invoices reducing the price - Following decision of Mauria Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2006 (8) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA (CHANDIGARH)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Vs. Blastech (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 873 - CESTAT, DELHI] - Therefore, refund claims of the appellants are not maintainable - Decided against assessee.
|