9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gether and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Shri C. Chidambaram, ld. Consultant for appellants and Shri S. Kannan, ld. JDR. 3. Ld. Consultant submits that the issue involves deductibility of cash discount from the assessable value of the goods which were first cleared from the factory gate to their depots and consequently after a lapse of certain time, were sold to the wholesale dealers from the depots. He submits that availability of cash discount scheme was made known to all buyers in advance and was uniformly available to all buyers. However, the quantum of discount available was known only after the goods were sold and the payments thereof received from the buyers within the period by virtue of which they qualified for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 4. This is because the goods are not cleared from the factory gate for direct sale but on stock transfer basis to their field organisations and the actual sale to customers takes place therefrom at a much later date. However, it is the declared policy of the appellant to give cash discount in case the payments by the buyers are settled within the stipulated time. Since the date of actual sale is not known at the time goods were removed from the factory gate on payment of duty, it is the element of cash discount which could be made available to the appellants as per this policy which is also now known at that time. Therefore, the appellants wrote letters to the Proper Officer of Central Excise explaining this position and claiming that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the formal refund claim 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 Amrith 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. However, before the law as laid down in the above mentioned final orders of this Tribunal can be applied to the facts of this case, the facts themselves would need to be verified. Since this involves detailed examination of the facts, it would be but proper that the same would be done by the original authority himself. Therefore, it is necessary to set aside the orders-in-appeal impugned and to remand the matter to the original authority with the directions that principles of law already upheld in the above noted final order of this Tribunal and the appellants own case should be applied to the facts of this case in these de novo proceedings being sent to him. Needless to say that appellants shall be given opportunity to be heard before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
