Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Sankhla Udyog, Jodhpur (Raj.) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II

2016 (7) TMI 651 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Refund claim - valuation - price escalation - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case refund can be granted to the assessee in a situation where the assessments were not made provisional but the price of excisable goods was reduced downward aft .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee on merits. - On the unjust enrichment angle, we find that in the instances before us, the customers have refused the payment of the price escalation invoices raised by the appellants. From this, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wa, Member (Judicial) and Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) ORDER The two appeals under consideration deal with the same subject and hence are taken together for a de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ause. Wherever prices are increased, they pay differential excise duty and in cases, where prices are reduced, they claim refund of the excise duty paid. In the two instances covered by the two appeals pending before us, the appellant raised invoices .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntral Excise Act. These refund claims were rejected by the Original Authority which, in turn, was upheld by the appellate authority. The rejection was on merits as well as on the ground of unjust enrichment. The rejection on merit was on the ground t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Advocate for the appellants as well as Ld. DR for the Revenue. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellant brought to our notice the fact that an identical matter has been decided by this Tribunal in appellant s own case vide final Order No. A/58651/2013-SM ( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eased. 5. We find that the issue is no longer res-integra inasmuch as this has been covered in appellants own case brought to our notice by the Ld. Advocate. In the above decision, which was passed on the basis of various decisions of the Hon ble Tri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version