Tribunal grants refund for duty paid, excludes transportation charges. Legal precedents and invoices key.

M/s Pearl Drinks Limited Versus C.G. & S.T. Jammu

M/s Pearl Drinks Limited Versus C.G. & S.T. Jammu - TMI Issues:
1. Refund claim denial under Notification No. 1/10 dated 06.02.2010.
2. Excess duty payment and entitlement to refund.
3. Inclusion of freight in the assessable value for refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the denial of refund claim under Notification No. 1/10 dated 06.02.2010 due to excess duty payment and non-inclusion of freight in the assessable value of goods.

2. The appellant contended that they paid duty at the time of clearance and subsequently paid duty on returned goods, thus not resulting in excess duty payment. They claimed refund of the actual duty paid in cash, citing a precedent by the Tribunal in Shree Nath Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jammu.

3. Regarding the inclusion of freight in the assessable value, the appellant argued that they did not include freight based on the decision in Uflex Ltd Vs. CCE, Jammu. They submitted sample invoices to support their claim for refund on transportation charges.

4. The Authorized Representative opposed the appellant's contentions, stating that the appellant had taken Cenvat credit on returned goods, raising doubts about any subsequent duty payment. The AR also questioned the lack of sufficient records for verifying transportation charges, leading to a remand back to the adjudicating authority.

5. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, held that the appellant was entitled to a refund of duty paid in cash at the time of clearance, as per the precedent in Shree Nath Industries case. The Tribunal emphasized that the excess duty payment was not entitled to a refund, as it was a deposit and not actual duty payable.

6. The Tribunal further ruled that the appellant could claim a refund on transportation charges based on the invoices submitted, as they had not included these charges in the assessable value. Consequently, the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues raised, arguments presented by both parties, legal precedents cited, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.