TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors on which Central Excise duty is payable on the basis of maximum retail price under Sec. 4A of the Central Excise Act; that during the period from May, 2000 to November, 2000, they had given centrifugal juicers/citrus juicers free of cost to their customers purchasing their food processors; that they were purchasing the juicers from M/s. AAR AAR Plastics, Faridabad, who were discharging the duty liability on the said juicers under Sec. 4A of the Central Excise Act. However, in fact, the assessment is not to be made on the basis of MRP as the juicers did not have any electric motor attached to them and they were not covered by the provisions of Sec. 4A of the Central Excise Act in terms of Notification No. 9/2000 (Serial No. 54); that due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laims refund. .Consequently, it is not open to the buyer to include the refund amount in the cost of purchase on the date when he buys goods as the right to refund accrues to him at a date after completion of the purchase depending upon his success in the assessment. .. Section 11B(2)(e) conferred a right on the buyer to claim refund in excess where he proved that he had not passed on the duty to any other person. The entire scheme of Section 11B showed the duty difference between the rights of a manufacturer to claim refund and the right of the buyer to claim the refund as separate and distinct . The learned Advocate, therefore, contended that the appellants have rightly claimed the refund of duty which has been paid in excess to the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something; that it has been further held by the Supreme Court that the words person aggrieved do not really mean a man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made. The learned D.R., further, submitted that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.), that where the party aggrieved had not chosen to exercise the statutory right of filing the appeal, it is not open to the party to question the correctness of the order of the Adjudicating Authority subsequently by filing a refund on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
