9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned Final Order No.A/50090/2016-SM[BR] dated 22.01.2016 Annexure A-3 passed by the CESTAT, New Delhi accepting the appeal filed by the respondent against the well reasoned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is perverse, illegal and untenable in the eyes of law? B) Whether the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent? C) Whether the impugned order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal is against the settled position of law and is therefore, liable to be set aside? D) Whether the impugned order dated 212.01.2016 passed by the learned CESTAT, New Delhi is based on surmises and conjectures and is, therefore, liable to be set aside? In our view a substantial question of law does not ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondents had not passed on any amount of discounts/incentives to their buyers/dealers at the time of clearance of goods on invoices but had issued credit notes later to them for the same on the basis of schemes prevailing during the relevant period; that the respondents had not recovered any amount from its buyers/dealers in respect of the discounts/incentives nor recovered any amount of duty on discounts/incentives. The credit notes indicated the amount credited to each dealers etc. 4. Mr. Saurabh Goel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relied upon the observations in paragraph-5 of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) that to the question as to whether the credit note included the amount of duty in addition t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fer to. 7. The Tribunal noted that the credit notes had been issued and that the same were adjusted in the books of accounts. The Tribunal also referred to a letter dated 26.07.2013 in which the respondents had informed the Range Superintendent that the refund claimed had been shown as "claims receivable" in the books of accounts under the head "Loans & Advances" and that such claimed amount did not form part of finished goods cleared during the relevant period. It also noted that the respondents had also informed the Refund Sanctioning Authority that the duty amount on account of discount has not been recovered from the dealers/customers. Whether these assertions of fact were correct or not is what fell for the determination of the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
