Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1214 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of excess duty paid - price variation clause - denial of refund on the ground that the price reduced at subsequent date is not required to be refunded by placing reliance in the case of MRF LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS [1997 (3) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Held that:- Wherever there was an upward revision in the price, the assessee has been paying differential duty and when there is a revision in price, he will be entitled to refund provided it is within the time limit prescribed under Sec.11B. If the assessee had opted for provisional assessment he could have claimed refund within one year from the finalization of provisional assessment but in this case he has claimed the refund within one year from the date of clearance of goods since the assessments were not provisional. Hon’ble Supreme Court had held in the case of MRF Ltd [1997 (3) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] that post clearance reduction in price does not evade the duty liability - It is found that this judgment was passed in the context of the valuation of goods under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act prior to 01.07.2000. During the relevant period, value was the normal price, i.e., price at which such goods were ordinarily sold in the course of whole sale trade at the time and place of clearance - the ratio of the judgement do not apply to the facts of present case. The ratio of the case of PTC Industries Ltd [2016 (8) TMI 200 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] is squarely applicable to the present case, where it was held that where there is price variation clause and the prices have been reduced subsequent to clearance, refund is admissible. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|