9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty on price that was agreed to between the parties as on the date of clearing of goods. But subsequently the prices were reduced downwards with retrospective effect and the oil companies adjusted excess payments made to the respondents prior to the date on which revised lower price was communicated to the respondents. These are three appeals being considered in this proceedings relating to three refund claims filed by the appellants in such circumstances as detailed below : A. No. Name of Oil company Period of clearance Refund claimed Date of filing of refund claims E/2689/05 HPCL 1-7-2009 to 31-10-2000 Rs. 6,53,087.44 Time bar not explained 15-12-2000 E/2690/05 IOCL 1-7-2009 to 31-10-2000 Rs. 11,33,913.60 Time bar not explai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of MRF Ltd. (supra) and also decision of the Tribunal in the case of Premier Plastic Pipes reported in 2005 TIOL 648 CESTAT (Del.) = 2006 (205) E.L.T. 938 (Tri. - Del.). Appeal No. E/2691/05 5. In this case, the claim was for Rs. 6,52,169.65. Out of this, the adjudicating authority sanctioned an amount of Rs. 4,52,478.10 and rejected the balance amount. Aggrieved by the order, Revenue filed appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) citing the decisions in the case of MRF Ltd. (supra) and Hindustan Wires (supra). Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of Revenue. Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has come up in second appeal before the Tribunal. 6.&em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consumer under an agreement having price variation clause. The decision of Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Wires relates to gas cylinders. Though in that case the claim was time-barred Tribunal had examined the claim on merits and rejected by relying on the decision in the case of MRF Ltd. (supra) without examining whether the clearances covered under an agreement with price variation can be considered on same footing as in the case of goods in the case of MRF Ltd. But later decisions of the Tribunal in similar matters is to the effect that refund can be granted in such cases as may be seen from the decision in the case of Universal Cylinders (supra) which was affirmed by the Apex Court as reported at 2005 (179) E.L.T. A41 (S.C.). So this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods has taken credit of duty paid by the assessee and utilized it for payment of the buyers' final product and whether the assessee is trying to get refund of the amount for which buyer has already taken Modvat credit thus involving refund of the same amount twice because Modvat credit also is a type of refund though paid to the buyer. The third aspect is whether the person paying duty passed on the incidence of duty to the buyer of the product as cost of the material sold and is trying to get refund of the tax paid by him. This is the issue involved in decision of the Apex Court in UOI v. Solar Pesticides Ltd. - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.). 8.4 In the case at hand the first and second aspects are relevant and the third aspect is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
