TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent got reduced from 8% to 4% w.e.f. 7-12-2008 by Notification No. 58/2008, dated 7-12-2008. However, for the clearances effected on 7-12-2008, the respondents paid the duty @ 8%; raised excise invoices indicating the rate of duty as 8%; they also collected the invoiced value including the excise duty from the customers; on 31-3-2009 they worked out the excess duty collected from the customers and passed back to them from the respective customers by way of issue of credit notes. The original authority, while agreeing that the respondents were eligible for refund of duty, held that they have not proved that the burden has not been shifted to their customers. On appeal by the party, the Commissioner (Appeals), held that in view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of unjust enrichment, the transactions between the manufacturer and the first stage dealers was relevant or subsequent transactions downstream were also relevant. 5. Learned Advocate for the respondents strongly supports the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The finding of the original authority that the respondents have not proved that during the four months (between date of original invoice and date of credit note), the duty burden would have been passed on downstream is not relevant. Once the excise duty collected from the first stage dealers was returned to them by issuing credit note, the duty burden stands borne by the respondents themselves. Therefore, he submits that the refund claim has been rightly ordered in cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e unjust enrichment provisions and held that only the transactions between the manufacturer and the first stage dealers only are relevant. Further, Hon ble High Court considered the transaction of sale by indicating cum-duty-price and subsequently the assessee passing on turnover discount, which could be determined only at the end of specified period. The facts of the case in Addison Co. (supra) are thus qualitatively and significantly different from the facts of the present case. 6.3 The decision of the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of A.K. Spintex Ltd. (supra) dealt with the case of assessee taking 45% deemed credit on inputs while they were in fact eligible for 50% of the credit during the relevant period. In that cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
