2015 (11) TMI 1344 - AT - Central Excise

Tax Tribunal affirms refund claims worth Rs. 2,702 and Rs. 1,701, remands others for review.

CCE-Bhopal Versus M/s. Vindhya Teleink ltd.

CCE-Bhopal Versus M/s. Vindhya Teleink ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Refund claim of Rs. 2,702/- for duty paid twice on a consignment of optical fibre cables.2. Refund claim of Rs. 1,701/- for duty paid on a higher rate due to clerical error.3. Refund claim of Rs. 1,48,253/- for duty paid on a higher rate for goods supplied to M/s. Bharti Touch Tell.4. Refund claim of Rs. 87,479/- for duty paid on a higher rate for goods supplied to M/s. Tata Tele Services.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Refund Claim of Rs. 2,702/- for Duty Paid Twice:The respondents, manufacturers of optical fibre cables, initially cleared two drums under invoice no. 960 dated 25/11/2002, paying duty through PLA. One drum was damaged during loading, and the consignment was not cleared. The goods were later cleared on 31/3/2003 under invoice no. 1815, with duty paid again. The respondents applied for a refund of Rs. 2,702/- as duty was paid twice. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, noting that the goods were damaged during loading, making Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules inapplicable.2. Refund Claim of Rs. 1,701/- for Duty Paid on Higher Rate:The respondents cleared goods under invoice no. 1075 dated 11/12/2002, paying duty on a higher rate of Rs. 47,500/- per km instead of the correct rate of Rs. 46,500/- per km due to a clerical error. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, as the respondents received payment based on the commercial invoice rate of Rs. 46,500/-.3. Refund Claim of Rs. 1,48,253/- for Duty Paid on Higher Rate for Goods Supplied to M/s. Bharti Touch Tell:The respondents cleared goods under invoice no. 71 dated 25/4/2003, paying duty based on a rate of Rs. 1,36,500/- per km. M/s. Bharti Touch Tell later informed the respondents that the correct rate per their rate contract was Rs. 69,800/- per km, and payment was received at this rate. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it. The Tribunal noted that if the rate contract specified Rs. 69,800/- per km, the case would not involve a post-clearance rate revision, making the MRF Limited judgment inapplicable. The matter was remanded to verify the rate contract details.4. Refund Claim of Rs. 87,479/- for Duty Paid on Higher Rate for Goods Supplied to M/s. Tata Tele Services:The respondents cleared goods during October 2002 to January 2003, paying duty based on old rate contracts as the new rates were not finalized. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it. The Tribunal noted that if the rates were not fixed during the supply period and were finalized later, the respondents would be eligible for a refund. The matter was remanded to ascertain whether the rates were decided post-supply.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) orders for refund claims of Rs. 2,702/- and Rs. 1,701/-, finding no infirmity. However, the refund claims of Rs. 1,48,253/- and Rs. 87,479/- were remanded for de-novo adjudication to verify the factual positions regarding rate contracts and supply periods. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed.