TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cidence of duty, in respect thereof the claim had been preferred by the assessee, had been passed on to the customers. We find that the ruling of Hon’ble High Court is squarely applicable in the present case. Therefore, we allow the appeal filed by M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. We further do not find the ground raised by Revenue, to be tenable in law. - Decided in favour of appellant - Appeal Nos. E/2726 & 2802/2007-CU[DB]with Cross Application No. E/CROSS/276/2007 - Final Order No. 70825-70826/2016 - Dated:- 1-9-2016 - Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri R. Sudhinder, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rajiv Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR) for the Department ORDER Per Mr. Anil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id Order-in-Original No. 90/Refund/2006 dated 13-11-2006. M/s Varun Beverages Ltd., also filed three similar Refund Applications for amount of ₹ 10,66,148, 1,13,811/- and 5,73,694/- which were rejected by Original Authority through Order-in-Original respectively through Orders-in-Original 91/Refund/2006 dated 05-12-2006, 92/Refund/2006 dated 06-12-2006 120/Refund/2006 dated 22-01-2007 respectively. M/s Varun Beverages Ltd., preferred appeal against said three Orders-in-Original before Commissioner (Appeals) which were assigned Appeal No. 174/2006, 176/2006 44/2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) through his Order-in-Appeal No. 92-95-CE/LKO/2007 dated 27.07.2007, decided above stated four appeals in which he has held that the goods man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s there is no unjust enrichment and refund is admissible. 4. The Grounds of appeal in Appeal No. E/2802/2007 filed by Revenue is that in the budget proposal there was no provision to withdraw the Special Excise Duty on Beverages base syrup. They further contended that Notification No. 7/2005-CE (NT) dated 24-02-2005 clarified that the existing rate of duties in the 1st Schedule and 2nd Schedule would continue without any substantive change. 5. The ld. Counsel for the M/s Varun Beverages Ltd., has contended that out of the four cases, in three cases they were allowed refund by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that after 01-03-2005 the Special Excise Duty under 2nd Schedule was not applicable to them an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the said period by issuing credit notes. It was pleaded that at the time of removal of the goods, it was not possible to know the quantum of discount that was to be deducted from the transaction value. The Original Authority agreed with the assessee in principle of admissibility of the refund but directed that said refund be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and held that no portion of the duty, of which refund had been claimed, had been passed on to the consumers and in fact it was borne by the assessee. The said order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld by this Tribunal. The Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana held that both the appellate authorities below have recorded a concurr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
