9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 158 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of refund claim - Quantity discounts given to dealers of Motor Vehicles at the end of the calendar year - incidence of duty refunded to the dealer through credit notes - Unjust enrichment - The actual quantum of discount was known only after completion of the calendar year - Held that - Refund not affected by unjust enrichment - ruling of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Addison & Co. 2000 (11) TMI 146 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS is good law. No stay have been given by the Hon ble Apex Court 2002 (11) TMI 768 - Supreme Court of India . Further the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in order 2014 (3) TMI 671 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT have followed Addison & Co. I also find that the facts of present appeal are common with the facts of the Addison & Co. (supra) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Provisional assessment based on quantity discount scheme. 2. Duty incidence passed on to customer and issuance of credit notes. 3. Refund claim hit by unjust enrichment. 4. Interpretation of Sections 11B, 12B, 12C, and 12D of the Act. 5. Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases. 6. Disbursement of determined refund with interest. Issue 1: Provisional assessment based on quantity discount scheme The appellants cleared motor vehicles to dealers at fixed rates with quantity discounts. Assessment was provisional based on quantity discount scheme. The actual discount was determined at the end of the calendar year. The Deputy Commissioner sanctioned a refund but credited it to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment concerns. Issue 2: Duty incidence passed on to customer and issuance of credit notes The adjudicating authority observed that duty incidence was passed on to the customer, and credit notes were subsequently issued. The question arose whether the refund claim was exempt from unjust enrichment due to the issuance of credit notes. Issue 3: Refund claim hit by unjust enrichment The Commissioner upheld the Order-in-Original, stating that the refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment as the duty burden was passed on to the buyer, but the refund claim was filed by the manufacturer. Previous judgments were cited to support this decision, emphasizing that issuance of credit notes after passing on the duty does not alter the position. Issue 4: Interpretation of Sections 11B, 12B, 12C, and 12D of the Act The counsel for the appellant referred to the ruling of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Addison & Co. v. CCE, Madras, highlighting the conditions for refund eligibility and the role of the Consumer Welfare Fund. The interpretation focused on the duty burden not being passed on to any other person for a refund claim to be valid. Issue 5: Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases The Tribunal considered previous judgments like Adrash Gaur Gum Udyog and Sangam Processors, emphasizing that once duty burden is passed on to the customer, issuance of credit notes does not change the unjust enrichment scenario. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Addison & Co. was also referenced to support the ruling. Issue 6: Disbursement of determined refund with interest The Tribunal allowed the appeal, citing the ruling of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Addison & Co. as good law. The appeal was granted with directions to disburse the determined refund within six weeks along with interest as per rules, considering the facts of the present case aligned with the Addison & Co. case. This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal reasoning and interpretations applied by the Tribunal.
|
