TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Unit, to which the goods have been supplied is operating under Area Based exemption during the relevant period. Thus, there is no chance of Hero Motor Corp having taken Cenvat credit and utilised the same. There is no doubt as to genuineness of the transaction as well as the debit note in question issued by Hero Motor Corp Ltd, and accepted by the appellant-assessee. It is found that adequate entries have been made by the appellant in the Books of Accounts and they have credited the account of Hero Motor Corp. Further, the amount of refund claim have been shown as duty recoverable from the revenue in the Books of Accounts and the financial statements of the appellant being balance-sheet. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 2016 as is supported by the extract of the general ledger. Thus, due to acceptance of this debit note by the appellant, the amount of excise duty Rs. 9,26,890.43/- stood reimbursed to Hero Motor Corp. Further, this amount has been shown as excise duty recoverable in general ledger account of the appellant. Further, certificate of Chartered Accountant have been annexed, certifying that the said amount of Rs. 9,26,890.43/- have not been passed on to Hero Motor Corp., rather the same stands reimbursed to Hero Motor crop. 3. Thereafter, the appellant filed refund claim on 24th March 2017 for the refund of excess excise duty Rs. 9,26,890/- before the Assistant Commissioner, mentioning the reason for refund claim and also enclosed various d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grieved the appellant-assessee is before this Tribunal inter alia on the grounds that the court below have erred in observing that the said debit note does not make it clear that it was issued on account of price variation or for some other reason. It has been erroneously observed that the debit note amount does not match with the amount of refund claim. The learned Counsel for the appellant explains the breakup of debit note as follows:- Price Difference : Rs. 74,15,123.48 ED (Excise Duty) : Rs. 9,26,890.43 (The amount for which refund claimed) S.Tax (Sales Tax) : Rs. 2,50,260.42 G. Total : Rs. 85,92,274.33 (The amount of debit note) 8. It is further urged that the appellant demonstrated the debit note comparing it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the impugned Order-in-Appeal is a non-speaking order and have been passed in a mechanical manner. The impugned order have more or less reproduced the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and have not recorded any independent conclusions. 11. The appellant further relies on the ruling of this Tribunal in CCE, Raipur Vs. IBP Ltd 2013 288 ELT 385, wherein it have been held that the presumption that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the customer, once the amount of duty has been reflected in the sales invoice, definitely there is presumption under Section 12B of the Act that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the customer. However, this presumption is a rebuttable presumption and once the assessee produces suffic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
