2026 (7) TMI 1442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing of Auto Parts and electric goods falling under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and had sold the said goods to M/s Munjal Showa, Haridwar in the ordinary course of business on payment of duty on the transaction value determined in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, the appellant issued two supplementary invoices seeking an increase in the rates of the parts of automobiles already cleared against the original invoices, namely Supplementary Invoice No.0120003070 dated 31.01.2012, demanding an additional amount of Rs. 5,30,964/- plus duty of Rs. 54,689/-, and Supplementary Invoice No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 27.09.2017, upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly treated the claim as one of refund of duty paid on clearances effected on the basis of transaction value; whereas, it is not so. He further submits that it is a case of duty paid on a proposed increase over and above the transaction value already accepted by the customer, which increase was never accepted by the customer. He refe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Ltd Vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai reported in 2026 (4) TMI 1739 -CESTAT Chennai. 5. On the other hand, learned authorized representative for the Department reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the only issue involved in the present case is whether the appellant is entitled to claim the refund claim of Rs. 1,05,906/- paid by him on two supplementary invoices on account of increase in the rates of the parts of the automobile already cleared against original invoices. We also find that the enhancement of price was never accepted by the buyer and the buyer has also issued a certificate to the fact....