9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant Shri K. Poddar, DR - for the respondent ORDER Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned orders wherein the refund claims have been rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is located in the State of Uttrakhand and having a manufacturing unit of motor vehicle parts which have to be supplied to M/s Ashok Leyland ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eement of AL." 3. The appellant were manufacturing the goods and supplying the same to their buyer. The buyer with notice to the appellant reduced the prices with effect from 1.12.2015 through a communication through e. mail dated March, 16, 2016 and issued debit note to the appellant for change in price. On the basis of that, the appellant filed refund claim of excess duty paid by them during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st enrichment. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as per the terms of agreement, the buyer was having a right to reduce the price at any time and the buyer has issued them debit notes after reducing the price with intimation to the appellant. Buyer has not borne the duty component being user of those parts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Counsel and submits that as per clause 7 of the Agreement, itself, the buyer is required to issue notice in prior for adjustment of rates and compensation of raw material. Therefore, they are not entitled to claim refund of excess duty paid by them as per the terms of agreement the reduction made can be prospectively. 6. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 7. On examination of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. was the ultimate consumer of the parts which have been used by them to manufacture the vehicles. Therefore, the appellant is able to prove that duty component has not been passed on the buyer, as the buyer has issued debit note to them for duty component. In that circumstances, the appellant is entitled to claim refund of excess duty paid at the time of clearance of the goods. Therefore, I d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
