2026 (1) TMI 208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-III, P.O. Udharband, Cachar, Assam - 788 030, registered under the erstwhile Excise laws bearing Registration no. AAACL6484CXM001. The appellant is in the business of manufacture of Mild Steel Bars, which are classified under Sub-heading No. 7214 10 10 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 1.1. During the relevant period i.e. Financial Year 2010-11, the appellant were availing the benefit as provided under Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007. As a result, the appellant was claiming refund of the duty of excise paid on removal of excisable goods from the place of removal, till the extent such duty was paid after utilization of CENVAT Credit. 1.2 On 22.07.2013, a joint physical stock verification was co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in values appearing in balance sheet and Excise returns, it was stated that the difference arose due to sale of non-excisable items, which were included under the heading "revenue from operations" in the balance sheet, but excluded from the Excise returns. 1.5. On completion of the investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated 15.05.2014 was issued under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking extended period of limitation. The Notice alleged that the appellant has wilfully availed excess CENVAT Cedit on raw materials and unduly claimed excess refund of Excise duty in terms of Notification No. 32/1999-CE. The Show Cause Notice raised the following allegations / issues: i. Demand of a sum of Rs. 88,063/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ground that there had been an erroneous grant of refund, which ought naught to have been granted by the ld. adjudicating authority. 1.8. The Ld. appellate authority has allowed the appeal filed by the department, vide the Order-in-Appeal No. 42/SH/CE(A)/GHY/2015 dated 31.03.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned order") and held that the appellant ought to have claimed deduction of the discount value from the transaction value of excisable goods, and thereafter, determined their duty liability and availed refund. However, as no deduction of discount was made, it was held that excess refund was erroneously granted to the appellant, which was liable to be paid in terms of the proviso to Section 11A of the Excise Act. 1.9. Aggri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anted. Therefore, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the findings of the ld. lower appellate authority that the appellant has erroneously claimed excess refund, is without any merit, and ought to be set aside. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. We find that the issue involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant has claimed excess refund as provided under the Notification No. 20/2007-CE, by purposely not availing the abatement of the year-end discount from the assessable value, which in turn has resulted in excess payment of the refund, or not. It is to be seen that in terms of....