TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment of duty based on the price initially agreed between the two. The contract between the appellant and the said company contained a price variation clause, which it appears, was invoked by the appellant and the buyer entertained their request for downward revision of prices. It appears, the negotiations did not culminate in any reduction of price of the goods for the said period, for quite some time. Pending final decision by the buyer, the appellant filed a refund claim on 22-6-2004 claiming refund of duty of Rs. 5,83,135/- which, apparently, was worked out by the claimant themselves. The revised price was determined as late as on 1-2-2005. Subsequently, the appellant filed the relevant documents to the department in support of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. The learned counsel has also referred to the Tribunal's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai v. Sua Explosives & Accessories Ltd. [2009 (240) E.L.T. 577 (Tri.-Chennai)] wherein the decision in Telephone Cables case was followed and the department's appeal against grant of refund based on downward revision of price of the goods was dismissed. The learned counsel has also argued that the time bar provisions are prospective in nature and should not be allowed to stand in the way of grant of a substantive benefit like refund. In this connection, reliance is placed on Collector of Central Excise v. I.T.C. Ltd. [1993 (67) E.L.T. 529 (Tri.)]. The learned counsel therefore prays for setting aside the impugned order. 3. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tial between the price on the date of removal and the reduced price at which the tyres were on sold the direction of the Government. The assessee contends that their price list was approved on 14-5-1983 but subsequent thereto on account of consumer resistance, the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, directed them, pursuant to the decision taken at the meeting with tyre manufacturers, to roll back the prices to pre 14-5-1983 level and it is on account of this roll back of prices that there came about a differential in the price on the basis of which the assessee claimed refund of excise duty to that extent. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that under Rule 9A and Rule 173C(2)(vi) of the Central Excise Rules, the duty was chargeable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s unexceptionable. Besides as rightly observed by the Tribunal the subsequent fluctuation in the prices of the commodity can have no relevance whatsoever so far as the liability to pay excise duty is concerned. That being so, even if we assume that the roll back in the price of tyres manufactured by the appellant-company was occasioned on account of the directive issued by the Central Government, that by itself, without anything more, would not entitle the appellant to claim a refund on the price differential unless it is shown that there was some agreement in this behalf with the Government and the latter had agreed to refund the excise duty to the extent of the reduced price. That being so, we see no merit in this appeal brought by the as....