2017 (12) TMI 947 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess duty paid - price variation clause - Section 11B of the CEA - Held that - Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Mauria Udyog Ltd. 2006 (8) TMI 49 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT held that if the clearance of goods are not on provisional basis and subsequently the prices are reduced that cannot be made the foundation for seeking refund and the provisions of Section 11B of the CEA is applicable in such circumstances - refund not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Refund of excess excise duty paid due to price variation clause.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing transformers, cleared goods to Kerala State Electricity Board with a price variation clause. The appellant paid duty based on upward price escalation but received less payment than invoiced. A refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (A), who also rejected it. The appellant argued that excess duty paid due to price variation entitles a refund without Section 11B of the Central Excise Act applying, citing relevant case laws. The AR contended that settled decisions by higher courts support the rejection of the refund claim. The tribunal considered the arguments and cited the Mauria Udyog Ltd. case where the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that if goods are not cleared provisionally and prices later reduce, a refund cannot be claimed without Section 11B applying. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. Relying on various decisions, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal found no infirmity in rejecting the refund claim, as the price reduction post-clearance cannot serve as the basis for seeking a refund without the application of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The decision was based on established legal principles and precedents set by higher courts, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal.