https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350454 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner(Appeals) decision in a case involving a refund claim under Section 11B. The dispute arose from a rejected supplementary invoice for excisable goods, with the Revenue arguing for duty payment on the total invoice value. However, the Tribunal ruled that duty is payable based on the main invoice value at the time of goods removal, and since the customer did not pay for the supplementary invoice, the duty paid on it was deemed an excess payment eligible for refund. The Tribunal's decision was supported by a precedent involving Amul Industries Pvt Ltd and a judgment from the Madras High Court. en-us Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Nov 2017 06:45:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350454 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner(Appeals) decision in a case involving a refund claim under Section 11B. The dispute arose from a rejected supplementary invoice for excisable goods, with the Revenue arguing for duty payment on the total invoice value. However, the Tribunal ruled that duty is payable based on the main invoice value at the time of goods removal, and since the customer did not pay for the supplementary invoice, the duty paid on it was deemed an excess payment eligible for refund. The Tribunal's decision was supported by a precedent involving Amul Industries Pvt Ltd and a judgment from the Madras High Court. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350454