2026-VIL-1358-CESTAT-CHD-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise – Refund of duty paid on Supplementary Invoices for price enhancement rejected by buyer – Appellant issued supplementary invoices seeking increase in rates of automobile parts already cleared against original invoices but buyer did not accept enhanced prices and did not pay any amount against supplementary invoices – Appellant filed refund claim for duty paid on proposed price enhancement – Original authority rejected refund claim alleging that even if customer did not honour increased price, appellant remained liable to pay duty on transaction value – Whether appellant is entitled to refund of duty paid on supplementary invoices for price enhancement when buyer did not accept enhanced prices and issued certificate confirming non-acceptance, non-payment and non-availment of CENVAT credit - HELD – The assessable value under Section 4(1)(a) of CEA, 1944 is transaction value being price actually paid or payable for goods. The enhancement of price sought through supplementary invoices was rejected by buyer and no amount was actually paid or remained payable. Since buyer never accepted enhanced price and was never liable to pay enhanced amount, such amounts cannot be part of transaction value by any stretch of definition – Further, the buyer did not avail any CENVAT credit on strength of supplementary invoices as it was availing area-based exemption. The principle of unjust enrichment not applicable when price increase not accepted by buyer and buyer issued certificate to that effect – Both lower authorities wrongly treated refund claim as one of refund of duty paid on clearance effected on basis of transaction value. The reliance placed by lower authorities on Section 4(3)(d) wholly misplaced – The impugned order not sustainable in law and set aside – The appeal is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page