Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1385 - CESTAT KOLKATARefund claim on decreased price with retrospective effect - Whether the refund is admissible where the price variation clause is contained in the contract, the price was reduced with retrospective effect and the differential amount including taxes returned to the buyer through the credit notes – Held that:- It is evident from the above that there is no apparent contradiction and the various case laws cited by the Revenue and the Ld. Advocate for the appellant relate to different facts and circumstances of the case and therefore each case has to be examined on its own merits based on its own facts. The Commissioner (Appeal) had relied upon the letter dated 11/10/2011 of M/s. VFJ alone and allowed the appeal without discussing whether the documents called for from the appellants by the adjudicating authority were necessary to process their refund claims under the provisions of Section 11B of the Act - the applicant did not produce the documents called for from them to process their refund claims – order of the Commissioner (Appeal) set aside and the matter remitted back to the adjudicatory authority to decide the issue afresh. He should provide a list of those documents necessary to verify the contention of the applicant/appellant that refund was due as according to variation clause in the contract/supply order, price was reduced and consequently the differential amount including duty was returned to M/s. VJF - On production of these documents the adjudicating authority shall verify the claims in terms of Section 11B of the provisions of Central Excise Act and pass a fresh order – Appeal allowed by way of Remand – Decided in favour of Revenue.
|