TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Rules, 2004 will not render the assessment as final assessment and refund can be granted in such a situation. appeal allowed. refund granted - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal Nos. 2009 to 2011 of 2008 - Final Order Nos. 52650 52652 /2016 - Dated:- 27-7-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sh. B. L. Yadav, Consultant for the appellant Sh. R. K. Manjhi, DR for the respondent ORDER Per Archana Wadhwa As per facts on record the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of steel casting falling under Chapter Heading 73.25 of the first schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 entered into rate contract with M/s Northern Coalfields Limited, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal against the said order, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the same and observed that having paid the excess duty and having collected the same from their customer, even though adjusted in subsequent bills, the provision of unjust enrichment would apply. He accordingly rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 5. Ld. Advocate for the appellant has drawn our attention to various decisions laying down that if there subsequent reduction in the price, which in turn is based upon the price variation clause in the rate contract, the assessment has to be considered as provisional. Non observance of procedure under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2004 will not render the assessment as final assessment and refund can be granted in such a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of duty excess paid at the time of original clearance. Reference also stands made to the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of MRF Ltd., vs. CCE, Madras 1997 (92) ELT 309 (SC). 8. However, we find that the said decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MRF Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable inasmuch as in that case its stand clearly observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court that there was no contract between the parties. As regards the price variation clause and the appellant have not placed anything on record to show that there existed any agreement between the appellant and their buyers evidencing that the prices were provisional. Similarly, in the case of Munjal Auto Industries (supra) there was no price variation clau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
