Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Gammon India Ltd vs Commissioner Of C.Ex. & S.Tax on 28 December, 2016
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.E/13556/2013 [Arising out of OIA No.SRP/207/VAPI/2013-14, dt.01.08.2013, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), C.Ex. & S.Tax, Vapi] M/s Gammon India Ltd Appellant Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.Tax, Vapi Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: None For Respondent: Shri A. Mishra, A.R. For approval and signature:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:28.12.2016 Order No. A/11908 / 2016, dt.28.12.2016 Per: Dr. D.M. Misra None present for the Appellant despite notice. The matter has been listed on 22.09.2016, 02.12.1016 and today i.e. 28.12.2016.
2. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that since the matter is quite old, may be disposed.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Hard Drawn Bare Aluminum Conductors Steel Re-inforced falling under Chapter 76 of Central Excise Act, 1985. The Appellant had filed a refund claim of Rs.3,31,171/- on the ground that there was downward revision of the prices resulting into excess payment of duty of the goods cleared i.e. during the year 2011. A show cause notice was issued, proposing rejection of the said claim on 28.11.2011. On adjudication, the refund claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
4. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that during the period in question, the Appellant had not resorted to the provisional assessment as prescribed under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Hence, any downward movement of the price, after clearance of the goods, would not make them eligible for refund of duty paid by the Appellant at the time of clearance of the goods. He submits that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Munjal Auto Industries Vs CCE Vadodara 2014 (307) ELT 577 (Tri-Ahmd), CCE Bhopal Vs Tesla Transformers Ltd 2013 (293) ELT 252 (Tri-Del) and Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mauria Udyog Ltd Vs CCE 2007 (207) ELT 3 (P&H).
5. I find that the short issue involved in the present case is whether the Appellant is entitled to refund of duty on downward revision of prices when the assessment was not provisional as prescribed under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. I find force in the contention of the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue that the issue is no more res integra and settled by the aforesaid decisions.
6. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. Appeal dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) Cbb 3