Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 24 - AT - Central ExciseViolation of principles of natural justice - grant of refund of excess excise duty paid on the transaction value without seeking an adjustment for discounts to the Appellant - incidence of duty on discount not passed to its dealers - HELD THAT:- The law in this regard is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS VERSUS M/S ADDISON & CO. LTD. [2016 (8) TMI 1071 - SUPREME COURT] that the onus is upon the person claiming refund of excise duty on post clearance discount to establish that the incidence of duty on such discount has not been passed on to any other person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Addison case has held in unequivocal terms that Credit Notes are valid instrument for the purposes of passing post clearance discounts and that an assessee is entitled for filing the claim for refund on the basis of Credit Notes raised by him towards discount. The CA certificate produced by the Appellant in the instant case goes to show that the Appellant has not passed on the incidence of duty on discount to its dealers. It is also found from the sample certificates issued by the dealers that such dealers were not registered under the Central Excise Law for the purposes of availing or passing of Cenvat credit. Therefore, the question of any double benefit in the form of refund of excise duty on the component of discount as well as Cenvat credit on the said component does not arise. Further, certificate from the dealers also confirms that the incidence of duty was not passed on by them to their buyers. These evidences establish that the duty element on the discount component was borne by the Appellant himself. Applicability of judgement in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS VERSUS M/S ADDISON & CO. LTD. [2016 (8) TMI 1071 - SUPREME COURT] - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court had rejected the revenue’s Civil Appeal No. 8488 of 2009 wherein the assessee had produced evidences in the form of CA certificate to show that the incidence of duty on discount was borne by the manufacture himself. Therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Addison case cannot be said to be against the Appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|