9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96 59/95 (G), dated 4-9-1995 1 2,09,074.00 5,27,401.00 Rejected 4. E/1857/94A 25/94 (G), dated 29-3-1994 7 20,58,318.002,121.00 Claimed Allowed 20,56,197.00 Rejected 5. E/2521/94A 36/94 (G), dated 31-8-1994 2 2,83,600.00 2,16,891.00 Claimed Allowed 66,709.00 Rejected 6. E/2522/94A 37/94 (G), dated 31-8-1994 3 6,23,612.14 5,12,902.00 Claimed Allowed 15 1,10,709.14 Rejected 2. The total amounts rejected in all these appeals taken together comes to Rs. 28,02,896.14. The grounds on which these refund claims have been claimed are mixture of the following : - (a) admissibility of Cash Discount as deductions from the assessable value of paper (b) admissibility of Trade or Quantity Discount as deductions from the assessable value of paper (c) admissibility of Freight subsidy or rebate from the assessable value of paper, and (d) whether the claimant is eligible to claim the refund under Section 11B. 3. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order. 5. Heard learned JDR Shri Rama Rao who submitted that with respect to cash discount issue, their letters supplied by the learned Consultant were blanket letters and they cannot be acceptable in lieu of refund claim for the purposes of computing the date of limitation. With regard to freight subsidy, he further pointed out that the claimant i.e. this appellant had no locus standi to claim the said refund under Section 11B as has been clearly held in the Order-in-Appeal No. 59/95 (G), dated 4-9-1995. He further submitted on this point, ld. Consultant had not given any argument. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions on both sides and the records of the case and we find that there are three issues involved in these bunch of appeals pertaining to rejection of refund claims which require our consideration. 7. The first of these issues is regarding Cash Discount wherein the claims have been rejected on time bar as the formal refund claims in the prescribed format were filed before the Proper Officer after the expiry of 6 months from the date of payment of duty. While considering the arguments advanced by the appellants in this connection, we find that they faced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim was filed later. It was held therein that this date is of crucial importance and the time bar is required to be calculated with reference to this date not the date of filing of the formal refund claim in 1981 which is merely consequential to and flows from the order of the Assistant Collector. The same principle is adopted again by the Hon ble Tribunal in their judgment of Amrit Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. - 1991 (54) E.L.T. 293 (T) wherein it was held that a letter written by the assessee to the Superintendent pointing out the excess payment made by them and requesting for refund of the same constitutes a valid refund claim. In this case, the formal refund claim was submitted subsequently after the completion of RT-12 assessments. It was held that the formal claim was a continuation of the original claim and therefore not hit by time bar under Section 11B. We note that while arriving at this decision, the Hon ble Tribunal had followed the similar principles laid down in the case of G.T.C. - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 29 (T) = 1989 (24) E.C.R. 49 (T). We, therefore, find that refund claim on this account cannot be rejected on the ground of time bar in view of the said letters, formal claims ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied products manufactured and cleared by them, the test of uniform availability to all is fulfilled. It would be illogical to hold that merely because some buyers do not want to buy a particular product and therefore cannot avail of the discount scheme on that product, other buyers who have need for that product should also lose the quantity discount thereof. This is exactly the conclusion which the learned Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals) had reached in another Order-in-Appeal (not a subject matter of this case) wherein he has decided accordingly in O-I-A No. 39/94 (G) C.E., dated 31-8-1994 in the case of this very appellant. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that as long as the above position in law is satisfied, the quantity/trade discount has to be allowed. 9. Coming to third issue of Freight subsidy/rebate, we find that in this connection, it is the say of the appellant that normally the buyers place orders for purchase of paper FOR destination by rail. However, often because of non-availability of railway wagons, the appellants have been forced to arrange transport of the goods by road which incurs a higher expenditure. To offset this disadvanta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid down herein would have to be applied to this. As far as questions of law i.e. the deductibility of the freight rebate from the assessable value is concerned, we find that the law is now well settled. In the case of M/s. Star Paper Mills as reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 78 = 1994 (55) E.C.R. 793 (T), the Hon ble Tribunal has accepted the assessee s claim that freight expenses charged beyond a fixed amount built into the factory gate price in order to compete in far-flung markets and reimbursed to customers subsequently by way of credit notes is admissible for deduction from the assessable value in principle and remanded the matter to Asst. Collector for ascertaining the facts and applying this law thereon. The Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals) have since changed the tenor of their orders on this subject. This has been discussed in Order-in-Appeal No. 02 03/97 (G), dated 31-1-1997 which allows the said freight discount. In the Order-in-Appeal, OIAs of his predecessors vide 5/96(G)-C.E., dated 29-1-1996 and 52/96 (G)-C.E., dated 13-6-1996 have been referred to. All these decisions have followed the decision of CEGAT in Star Paper Mills Ltd. case cited supra. We, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
