9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und application OIA No. & dt. Amount of refund claimed E/20324/2015 06/2008 to 03/2009 22/01/2010 No.145/2014 dt. 29/10/2014 Rs.1,20,246/- E/21776/2015 04/2009 to 03/2010 28/04/2010 No.55/2015-16 dt. 23/06/2015 Rs.79,164/- 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of PSC poles and supplying the same to their sole buyer M/s. Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB, for short). The appellant had filed the refund claims because they had paid differential duty on account of price revision and subsequently when the final claim was settled with their customer viz. KSEB, they did not reimburse the total differential duty and withheld part of the duty amount for some reason. The respondent have reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h contains a price escalation clause and therefore the appellant is entitled for refund of excess duty paid in case of revision of price downward. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. PTC Industries ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I [2016(340) ELT 563 (Tri. Del.)] ii. CCE, Ghaziabad Vs. Mahavir Cylinders [2012(284) ELT 54 (Tri. Del.)] iii. CC&CE, Hyderabad-IV Vs. Victory Electricals Ltd. [2013(298) ELT 534 (Tri. LB)] iv. ECE Industries Ltd. Vs. CC&CE, Hyderabad-II [2009(237) ELT 428 (Tri. Bang.)] v. Keltech Energies Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mangalore [2006(196) ELT 282 (Tri. Bang.)] vi. Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2006(199) ELT 155 (Tri. Bang.)] 4.2. He further submitted that non-observance of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) followed] 5.2. He further relied upon the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mauria Udyog Ltd. Vs. CCE [2007(207) ELT 31 (P&H)] wherein it has been held that when the goods are cleared not on provisional basis, then subsequently reduction of price could not be made foundation for seeking refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. This judgment was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the assessee and the appeal was dismissed by upholding the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court. 6. Therefore in view of the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mauria Udyog Ltd. (supra) which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, following the ratio of the same, I am of the considered view tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
