TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2015 to July, 2015 citing that in majority of the cases (clearances) the assessable value was higher than the NMIPL/RIPL price and claimed that this had resulted in higher amount of excise duty payment by the appellant. 3. A verification report was sought for vide letter dated 08.03.2016, from the Jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise, Oragadam I Range. After verification of the invoices and connected records, the Department was of the view that the appellant is not eligible for the refund-claim. Show Cause Notices Nos. 01/2016 and 02/2016 both dated 14.07.2016 were issued to the appellant proposing to reject the refund-claims. After due process of law, the original authority vide two Orders-in-Original rejected the refund-claims. Against such order, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order impugned herein upheld the rejection of refund claims. Hence, this appeal. 4.1 The Ld. Consultant Shri Rajaram R. appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant sold cars manufactured by them to their related parties (traders). Since in majority of the clearances, the value on which duty was paid was higher than the pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant to the related parties and the subsequent sale by such related parties to various unrelated dealers were furnished to the Department vide letter dated 13.05.2016. These documents have been rejected / overlooked by the original authority vide letter dated 15.05.2016. The letter has been referred in the Show Cause Notice and alleged that the appellant has to furnish details of sales made by the unrelated dealers to the end customers. 4.5 The Ld. Consultant asserted that Rule 10 speaks only about the sale price from related party to unrelated buyer and not to the end customers. The impugned order rejecting the refund-claim alleging that the appellant has not produced the details of sale price to end customers is without any legal basis. 4.6 The other reason for rejecting the refund-claim is that the appellant has not opted for provisional assessment. It is submitted that the appellant vide letter dated 06.05.2011 had requested the Department for provisional assessment in regard to the clearances of the goods. Reportedly there was no response from the side of the Department. It is argued that the refund-claim cannot be rejected merely because the assessment was not provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y is not known at the time of removal. Since, the product is manufactured for the first time in India, the end price of sale by related company to Dealer or Customers may vary depending on marketing conditions. The production volume has not been touched the expected levels and the competitive marketable price can be finalized only after initiating commercial sales and stabilization of sales in India. In view of the above, we request you to kindly allow us to clear the passenger cars on provisional price. We undertake to comply with the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for Provisional Assessment of Duty. We request you to kindly permit and oblige." 7.2 It is submitted by the appellant that there has been no response from the Department for the above request. The issue is no more res integra. In the case of Savita Oil Technologies Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi vide Final Order No. 11570/2023, the Tribunal held that the refund claim cannot be rejected merely because an assessee had not opted for provisional assessment when there is excess payment of duty. 7.3 In the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. Vs. Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,11,83,347/- Reply - Reg. Ref: Our ECC No. AADCR7965DXM001. Our Refund Application dated 24.02.2016 Further Documents submitted on 06.05.2016 and 13.05.2016 OC No. 438/2016 dated 13.05.2016 We reference to the above and letters mentioned above, we submitted the following for your consideration. 1. Copy of invoices issued by Dealers to End users: We do not possess any invoices of the Dealers who sold the vehicles to the end customers. Since the excess payment of Excise Duty is arrived based on selling price of our marketing companies i.e. M/s. NMIPL and M/s. RIPL to Dealers, we request you to dispense the requirement of Dealer Invoices to end customer which are not relevant to the Refund Claim. 2. Sales details up to End users: The Assessable value adopted by RNAIPL is higher than the NMIPL and RIPL net sale price to dealers. This has resulted in payment of higher amount of excise duty by RNAIPL and refund application filed based on this workings submitted to your good office. Sales details up to end customers are not available with us and not relevant to the present claim. We have been informed orally by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Oragadam-I Range to s....