2010 (7) TMI 429

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....da Motors Ltd. (HHML) under 36 invoices on payment of Central Excise duty. M/s. HHML had subsequently on receipt of the goods reduced the price and communicated that payments would be made to the appellants as per this reduce price. Based on this the appellant filed refund claim for Rs. 2,61,629/- claiming that the reduce price was the transaction value on which duty was payable and therefore claimed that they were entitled for refund of excess duty paid on the goods cleared. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants denying refund on the ground that the mutual adjustment, subsequent to clearance of goods was not a transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that the value of excisable goods shall be based on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ount charged for, or to make provision for advertising or publicity, marketing and selling organization expenses, storage, outward handling, servicing, warranty, commission or any other matter; but does not include the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any, actually paid or actually payable on such goods". and submitted that which clearly shows that price actually paid or payable for the goods. In this case the actual price received or payable was less than the invoice price. Hence appellant is entitled for refund claim. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Telephone Cables Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 237 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it was held that the "Refund-Price v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efund claim filed by the appellant on subsequent reduction of price by the buyer at the time of payment. It is true that the buyer M/s. HHML has not availed the Cenvat credit for the excess amount of invoice as per the* actual payment made by M/s. HHML. But in this case, the appellants were known to the transaction value and accordingly they raised the invoice as per that value. It is only at the time of payment, the buyer reduced the price. No provisional assessment was sought by the appellant in this case as the appellant was known to the actual price which latter on reduced by the buyer himself at the time of payment. Hence, as per Section 4(1)(a), the transaction value is the value at which the price of the goods means the price payable....