TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the Tribunal s Larger Bench decision in CCE, Ahmedabad v. Arvind Mills Ltd. - 2006 (204) E.L.T. 570 (Tri.-LB.) The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the lower authority for fresh decision on the question whether the trade discount allowed by the assessee to the customers required to be abated from the assessable value of the goods. In his second order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) considered the question whether the bar of unjust enrichment was applicable to refund of excess duty paid by the assessee for the aforesaid period. The appellate authority held against the assessee. Thus, there are two appeals from the assessee before us. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that both appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal s Larger Bench decision in Arvind Mills case. On the other hand, the ld. DR has referred to Lucas TVS Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 192 (Tri.-LB), wherein, it was held that transaction value includes any amount whether payable at the time of sale or at any other time and that any amount that the buyer was liable to pay by reason of, or in connection with, the sale of goods, whether payable at the time of sale or at any other time, was part of the transaction value. It is pointed out that the view taken by the Larger Bench in Lucas TVS Ltd .s case is contrary to the view taken in Arvind Mills case. The ld. D.R. has also claimed support from yet another Larger Bench decision viz. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .R. any cash refund of duty paid in excess would not be permissible to assessee. Relying on Gujarat State Fertilizeers Chem. Ltd. v. CC C.Ex., Vadodara [2005 (188) E.L.T. 92 (Tri.-Mumbai)], the ld. DR has also submitted that no adjustment can be granted on finalization of provisional assessment. 5. We have considered the submissions. Admittedly, the assessee had resorted to provisional assessments under Rule 7(1) after obtaining the requisite permission from the proper officer of Central Excise for the period 2006-07. Duty was paid on a provisional basis after executing the requisite bond under sub-rule (2). Sub-rule (3) authorized the Asstt. Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise to finalise the assessment within the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction-wise or invoice-wise. Sub-rule (6) has a nexus to sub-rule (3) and the latter has a nexus to sub-rule (1). In the result, what is required under Rule 7 is provisional assessment transaction-wise/invoice-wise followed by finalization of such assessment. If, upon finalization of such assessment, the assessee is found to have short-paid duty, he has to pay it up with interest. If upon such finalization of assessment, the assessee is found to have been made excess payment of duty, he can claim that amount of duty in terms of Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act read with sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the instant case, the original authority appears to have understood the provisions correctly, though he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
