Appellate authority affirms refund entitlement under Central Excise Act Sec. 11B, rejecting revenue's appeal.

CCE, Aurangabad Versus Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd. And Vice-Versa

CCE, Aurangabad Versus Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd. And Vice-Versa - TMI Issues:
1. Disposal of appeals by revenue and assessee against Order-in-Appeal No. AGS(194)84/09 dated 26.08.2009.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case revolves around the refund claim filed by the appellant under Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, amounting to &8377; 71,78,191/-, based on excess central excise duty paid due to a price revision clause in the agreement with purchasers. The adjudicating authority rejected part of the refund claim, leading to appeals from both the revenue and the assessee.

2. The first appellate authority allowed a refund of &8377; 35,91,361/- to the appellant but rejected a refund claim of &8377; 4,39,002/-. The authority concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund based on the retrospective price revision by the buyer, which led to the issuance of credit notes and a reduction in the transaction value, thus justifying the refund claim.

3. The revenue contended that the issuance of credit notes did not signify a non-passing of the duty burden, citing various decisions to support their argument. However, the appellant relied on relevant case laws to establish their entitlement to the refund based on the specific circumstances of the case.

4. Upon thorough consideration of submissions and records, the appellate authority upheld the rejection of the refund claim of &8377; 4,39,002/- as time-barred, as the claim was filed beyond the 12-month period stipulated in Sec. 11B. The appeal filed by the appellant on this issue was consequently rejected.

5. Regarding the revenue's appeal, the appellate authority found that the grounds raised by the revenue lacked merit. The authority emphasized that the appellant had met all requirements of Sec. 11B, and the issuance of credit notes was not disputed. Citing relevant judgments, the authority upheld the appellant's entitlement to the refund, ultimately rejecting the revenue's appeal.

6. In conclusion, both appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the revenue's appeal being rejected due to lack of merit, and the appellant's appeal on the time-barred refund claim also being dismissed.

End of Analysis