9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, are engaged in the manufacture of electronic meters falling under Chapter heading 9028.00 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. By an order dated 9.12.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, their refund claim amounting to Rs. 21,24,920/- has been rejected under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act. The appellant received a purchase order dated 31.10.2001 from M/s. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Hissar (in short "DHBVNL") for supply of 65,000 single phase (5-20 Amp.) electronic meters @ Rs. 1,120/- per meter on FOR basis. The price was inclusive of taxes, freight and insurance charges. Under condition No.6 of the purchase order, the full quantity of 65,000 electronic meters was required to be suppl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in price had been agreed to between the parties only in October, 2002. Hence, the said reduced price cannot be treated as transaction value at the time and place of removal of the goods. He, therefore, upheld the order in original rejecting the refund claim filed by the appellant. The CESTAT by the impugned order dated 4.2.2005 confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) stating: "We have perused the records and heard both the sides. It is noted that the original assessment and payment of the duty took place at the contracted price. The change in the amount paid is on account of imposition of penalty for delayed period. The penalty is separate from the price of the goods. There is no provision in the excise law for allowing deduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) order dated 18.6.2004 though correct in principle is wrong on facts as he does not refer to the letter dated 15.4.2005 of the appellant at all. The CESTAT is wrong in turn because on facts there was no imposition of penalty for the delayed period. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned order of CESTAT and the Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside. Since duty has been paid on the basis of the original price in the purchase order, the difference between the said rate and the reduced rate of Rs. 600/- per meter for 35000 meters which came to Rs. 21,24,920/- would have to be repaid to the appellant. This amount had been claimed by the appellant on 20.11.2002 and had been turned down by the impugned orders. The said amount will now as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
