Judgment:
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for transfer of the appeal to the Mumbai Bench. At the same time appellant has also made written submissions on merits. Hence we proceed to dispose the appeal on merits, on hearing Shri M. AH, JDR and perusal of papers.
2. Having supplied cleared excisable goods on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty, appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 6,730/- stating that after clearance and supply of goods, price was negotiated with the customer and the price was reduced, accordingly revised invoice was prepared and credit note was issued to the customer. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim and his order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence this appeal.
3. In the memorandum of appeal it is stated that the customer wanted urgent supply of goods, accordingly goods were cleared immediately and invoice and Gate Pass were prepared showing provisional price, that negotiation took place subsequently and the price was fixed at a amount lower than the provisional price shown in the invoice and pass.
Accordingly fresh invoices were prepared and credit notes were issued.
These allegations found in the present memorandum appeal were not made before the lower authorities. The case put forward before them was that supplies were made and in subsequent negotiations price was reduced.
That was a totally different case from the one presented now. If supply had been made at certain prices, subsequent reduction of prices ordinarily may not have any impact on the assessable value. If supply was made without fixing the prices and prices were fixed only subsequently, such fixation will have an effect on the assessable value. Appellant had not placed before the lower authorities, the case now presented. Hence we agree with the lower authorities that the refund claim was not tenable. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.