9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant is doing job work for M/s. V N Thakkar Hingwala & Sons for production of blending of Asafoetida with gum and wheat flour and paying duty. The appellant were getting lumpsum amount from their principals. At the end of the month, the appellant were raising the debit notes against the principal for the entire amount of excise duty paid during the month by adjusting the advance deposit. There was a dispute regarding the process of compounding of Asafoetida whether it amounts to manufacture or not, which travelled up to Hon'ble Supreme Court and finally settled in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, they issued debit note towards excise duty to the prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any other person therefore without considering the fact of debit note C.A. certificate was brushed aside relying same decisions which is not proper. He submits that in cases where there is prearrangement between seller and buyer on the issue of dispute of duty and when dispute is settled and amount has been adjusted by way of debit/credit note, refund will not hit by unjust enrichment. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Om Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Bangalore[2008(232) ELT 309(Tri. Chennai)] (b) Commissioner of C. Ex. Bangalore Vs. Om Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2011(268) ELT 79(Kar)] (c) M/s. The Pheonix Mills Ltd Vs. CCE, Mumbai(Tri. Mum) Order No. A/866/14/SMB/C-IV]. 4. On the other hand, Shri. Ashut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rincipal who is recipient of the goods has issued debit note towards amount of excise duty subsequent to the settlement of the issue. This fact has been certified by the C.A. by way of certificate that whatever duty was paid by the appellant was returned in the form of debit note issued by the principal to the appellant. If this transaction is correct then there is no reason to say that incidence of duty paid by the appellant has been passed on to either to the principal or to any other person. I failed to understand if the duty paid by the appellant and initially recovered but subsequently duty was returned back to the recipient of the goods, how the said amount can be recovered from any other person unless until it is proved by the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
