2019 (4) TMI 1835 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturer wins excise duty refund dispute based on contract clauses & rate adjustment.

PRAG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & S.T., LUCKNOW

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of Precision Rubber Moulded products, in a dispute with the Revenue over the refund of excess ... Refund of excess Excise Duty paid - principles of unjust enrichment - provisional assessment has not been accepted by the appellant - price variation clause applicable or not - CENVAT credit on Railways. HELD THAT:- The appellant accepted the lower rate by letter dated 1st September, 2014. Payment was made in accordance with the lower rates. It is therefore clear that 3,000 pieces were supplied at a lower price. The appellant therefore is clearly entitled to the refund of excess duty. There is no requirement of provisional assessment nor is it a case of unjust enrichment. It is therefore not possible to sustain the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is accordingly set aside. Refund allowed with applicable interest - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:1. Dispute over refund of excess excise duty paid by the appellant.2. Interpretation of contract clauses regarding price variation and delivery period extension.3. Applicability of refund entitlement based on the timing of goods supply in relation to rate reduction.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Precision Rubber Moulded products, received a purchase order from the Indian Railways for Shim Coil Springs. A subsequent price reduction by the Railways led to a dispute over the excess excise duty paid by the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority initially sanctioned the refund claim, citing no unjust enrichment. However, the Revenue appealed, arguing against the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) favored the Revenue, questioning the application of the price variation clause and the Railways' Cenvat credit utilization.2. The appellant's counsel contended that additional pieces supplied after a delivery period extension at reduced rates entitled the appellant to a refund. The contract clauses, specifically Clauses 26.1 and 26.2, supported the appellant's position. The Revenue, on the other hand, maintained that goods supplied before the rate reduction did not qualify for a refund. The Tribunal examined these arguments thoroughly.3. Upon review, the Tribunal found that 3,000 pieces were indeed supplied during the extended delivery period at the reduced rate accepted by the appellant. The Railways' communication confirmed the rate adjustment and the appellant's consent to the lower price. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The appellant was deemed entitled to a refund of the excess excise duty paid, with interest at the applicable rate, as per the contract terms and the circumstances surrounding the rate adjustment and goods supply.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the case.