2025 (8) TMI 1828

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entral Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals - I), Cochin. 2. The issue in the present appeal is regarding refund of the excess excise duty paid by the Appellant due to adoption of wrong method of valuation. The Appellant is manufacturing 'packaged drinking water' and 'soft drinks'. Initially when the production commenced, Appellant had calculated the excise duty on the value of clearance as per the invoice value. However, when Department initiated proceedings for non-adherent to MRP valuation in the year 2003, Appellant was forced to adopt MRP valuation. It continued even after issue of Notification No. 49/2008 restricting MRP only for 'mineral waters'. During relevant time in 2013 to 2014, since the market price/invoice value was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion to the invoice showing the amount collected by the Appellant from the traders and also the balance sheet showing the excise duty as refundable amounting to Rs. 20,63,623/- for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015.  4. As regarding time limit of one year prescribed in Section 11B(1) of Central Excise Act, 2004, Learned Consultant submits that issue is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Vs. Standard Chartered Bank (2008 (10) STR 6 (Kar.) where it is held that if an assessee is made to pay service tax in excess and if such refund is made, as it cannot be considered as unjust, since Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable to re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ertinent to note that The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Flock India (2000 (120) ELT 285) and Priya Blue Industries (2004(172)ELT 145) had held that refund claim contrary to assessment is not maintainable without the order of assessment having modified in appeal or reviewed and the Officer considering refund claim cannot sit in appeal over an assessment made by a Competent Authority. In the present case, there was no dispute regarding the valuation till October 2014. The appellant themselves had made the assessment of the goods manufactured by them based on MRP, and made payment of duty at appropriate rate, without any coercion from the department for a period upto October 2014 and thereafter they had changed their mode of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant to adopt proper method of valuation, proper officer have directed them to continue with the wrong method. Further only when a refund claim is made by appellant, concerned authority has issued impugned order confirming the demand. Thereafter, they have filed appeal, and they had no other option to challenge method of valuation wrongly adopted as instructed by the Assessing officer. Further we find that there was additional evidence to show that the due amount is shown as receivable in the books of accounts and it is not collected from the customers to invoke the provisions of unjust enrichment. 8. As regarding invoking the extended period of limitation and the judgments relied by the appellant in the matter of Standard Chartere....