TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 for the Indian Railways. The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs.54,96,223/-. 1.2. This refund contains three parts: - (i) The first part of the refund claim pertains to Rs.35,12,486/- which was claimed by the appellant on account of non-payment of enhancement of rate of duty by the Railways. The manufacturer-assessee had entered into a contract with the Railways containing a denial clause for any enhancement of rate of duty. Since there was an enhancement in the rate of duty during the relevant period, the Railways denied to pay the enhanced rate of duty as per the agreement. Since the appellant has already paid the duty at the enhanced rate, they have filed the refund claim. The Department contended that Central Excise Duty was liab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Rs.8,89,837/- which has already been allowed to the appellant in the impugned order and hence this part of the refund is not disputed in the present appeal. 2. Regarding the refund of Rs.35,12,486/-, the appellant submits that if there is any increase in the rate of duty, the Railways are required to pay the enhanced rate of duty to them. They submit that in the present case, they have already paid the duty at the enhanced rate, but the Railways have not paid them the enhanced duty; therefore, they are entitled for the refund of the excess duty paid by them to the tune of Rs.35,12,486/- which was not reimbursed by the Railways. 2.1. Regarding the refund of Rs.10,93,900/- arising on account of payment of liquidated damages to the Railw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Railways have not paid the enhanced rate of duty to them. We find that the Ld. Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the refund claim of the appellant on this count since the appellant has rightly paid duty at the enhanced rate. Accordingly, we hold that the rejection of the refund claim by the Ld. Appellate Authority in the impugned order on this count is proper and sustainable. 5.2. Regarding the rejection of refund claim of Rs.10,93,900/-, we observe that the Railways have imposed a penalty of Rs.1,36,23,253/- on the appellant on account of delay in supply of sleepers. The Department is no way connected with the delay in supply of the goods by the manufacturer and if there is any penalty imposed on account of such delay, it is t....