9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n payment of excise duty including the quantity which was to be given free to the customers, distributors etc. or without excluding the trade discount which was to be allowed as per the scheme circulated in advance. Subsequently, they filed several refund claims for the duty paid on the free units and discount as quantity discount. The refund claims were rejected on the ground that no declarations were filed under Rule 173C. This Tribunal remanded the matter back to the authorities below holding that the discounts are admissible and requiring the lower authorities to examine the issue of correlation of the excise duty invoices of clearance of goods from the factory depot invoices and the adjudicating authority was also to consider the limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y discount are admissible: (a) Sarabhai Chemicals - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 70 (Tri-Mumbai) (b) German Remedies Ltd. - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 328 (Tri-Del.) (c) Pharma Products Pvt. Ltd. - 2004-TIOL-952 CESTAT-MAD. 6. He also cited several decisions of this Tribunal wherein it was held that even if composite invoice at the depot does not show duty element separately refund is still admissible. 7. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the Revenue has not proved that free unit as per the scheme/trade discount. Once the quantity discount/trade discount is known and passed on, deduction is admissible. Unless this is established no case is made out for setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). We also fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the ratio of the following case laws: C.C.E., Vishakapatanam v. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. 2006 (198) E.L.T. 237 (Tri. - Bang.) Sarabhai Chemicals v. CC.E., Vadodara - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 70 (Tri- Mum.) I, therefore, find that the appellants have discharged the burden of proving that duty has not been passed on in the subject case and hence they are entitled, to the refund of Rs. 10,83,2161- sanctioned by the adjudicating authority but credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. In view of the discussion and findings above, the order of the adjudicating authority is upheld except with regard to the order in respect of refund of Rs. 10.83,216/- which is modified to the extent that the same is admissible to the appellants and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
