Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Sundeep Metal Works And Anr. vs Cce on 21 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(75)ECR297(TRI.-MUMBAI)
ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. These appeals are directed against the common order passed by the Collector (Appeals), upholding two separate orders passed by the Assistant Collector rejecting the refund claims preferred by each of the appellants.
2. The appellant in appeal No. E/4301 /89-A, engaged in the manufacture of conductors for supply to Maharashtra State Electricity Board was filing price lists from time to time and clearing the goods on approved prices. The contract price prior to 14.3.1987 was Rs. 3,787.23 per K. Mtr. length. On 14.3.1987, the appellant filed revised price list No. 165/87 in Part II declaring the price as Rs. 4,478.18. It is explained that this was done after moving the Electricity Board for enhancement of price due to increase in raw-material prices and under the hope that the Electricity Board would agree for enhancement, as suggested. The price list being approved, the appellant was clearing conductors on payment of duty at the approved higher price, though receiving only the old price from the Electricity Board. It appears that the Electricity Board declined to enhance the price to any extent. The appellant filed the refund claim for the period from 14.3.1987 to 21.3.1987 of the difference between the excise duty paid on the higher price and the excise duty payable on the old and ruling price. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim on the ground that revised list had been approved and any refund would amount to revision of the approval of the price list, which he could not make. This order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).
3. The facts in appeal No. E/4302/89-A are similar. The ruling price was Rs. 6,963.81. The appellant filed the revised price list No. 447/86 dated 23.3.1987 declaring the price as Rs. 7,604.40, in anticipation of the Electricity Board agreeing to enhance the price to that level. The Electricity Board declined enhancement. The appellant had paid duty on the higher price during the period from 24.3.1987 to 6.4.1987. Accordingly the refund claim was filed for the excess duty paid. The refund claim was dismissed by the Assistant Collector for reasons similar to those in the other appeal, and his order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).
4. The refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground that approval of price list has become final. In a similar situation, relying on decisions of Supreme Court, Calcutta High Court and the Tribunal, it was held by the Tribunal that finality of the approval of price list cannot be a ground for rejection of the refund claim. See Rasan Detergents v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, . Following the above decision, we hold that the rejection of refund claim was not justified. Refund claims are accordingly allowed. Appeals are allowed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open court).