Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee, while continuing under Notification No. 120/76-C.E., was entitled to refund of excess duty on the ground that the invoice showed a higher price due to error, though the parties had agreed to a reduced price with retrospective effect.
Analysis: The exemption under the notification operated on the basis of the true invoice price. If the invoice did not correctly reflect the price actually agreed between the manufacturer and the buyer, the higher figure entered by mistake could be corrected to reflect the real state of affairs. Seeking correction of an erroneous invoice did not amount to shifting from the invoice-price scheme to the price-list scheme. Clause (iv) of the proviso was also inapplicable because a price fixed or varied under a sale contract is not, by itself, a disqualifying commercial or financial relationship beyond the sale relationship itself.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to refund of the excess duty claimed.
Ratio Decidendi: Under an invoice-price exemption, duty must be assessed on the true invoice price, and a mistaken invoice entry may be corrected where the agreed sale price was different; a contractual price variation does not, by itself, attract the proviso excluding influenced invoice prices.