Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 333 - CESTAT MUMBAIRefund claim - price variation clause - supplementary invoice - denial on the ground that value of supplementary invoice is part and parcel of assessable value and should be included in the assessable value, therefore duty was correctly payable - Held that: - value which is paid or payable at the time of removal of the goods was the price which was charged in the main invoice. The supplementary invoice was raised subsequently for the price variations. The said price was not chargeable at the time of the clearance of the goods. Moreover, the customer has refused to accept that supplementary invoice and returned the same back to the respondent. Accordingly, firstly this amount was not payable at the time of clearance and subsequently also the same was not paid by the customer therefore excise duty paid in respect of supplementary is payment of excess duty which is correctly refundable to the respondent. Similar issue decided in the case of CCE Rajkot Versus M/s. Amul Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Others [2011 (3) TMI 586 - CESTAT, AHEMDABAD], where it was held that if the payment of supplementary invoice was not made by the customers because duty has not chargeable, refund of the same is admissible under Section 11B. Refund allowed - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|