9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty on the price as reduced by discount or commission allowed up to 30-7-1995. From 1-10-1975, appellant paid duty on the selling price of the distributor/selling agent under protest on the ground that only a distributor who is a relative of the assessee can be treated as related person under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, as held in Bombay Tyre International case [1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.)] and therefore, appellant could not be compelled to pay duty on the price charged by the distributor who is not a related person. Appellant filed revised price lists and subsequently filed two separate refund claims for the two varieties of goods. The claim for goods covered by erstwhile T.I. 49 was for refund of Rs. 9,86,941.65. The Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or refund can be negatived on the ground that duty had been collected from the customer. The High Court held that refund cannot be rejected on that ground. This is not the point arising in the present case. The decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise [1986 (23) E.L.T. 48] has been overruled by the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Union of India v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (Kar.) [1992 (61) E.L.T. 193]. 5. In Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1997 (92) E.L.T. 273 (Tribunal)] the Tribunal considered some of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal as also a few decisions of the Supreme Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ands of the manufacturer was not placed before the High Court of Bombay in Roche Products Ltd. case. The Bench of the Tribunal which decided the appeal in A. No. E/2289/86-A did not take into consideration the important circumstance that the decision of the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. had been overruled by a full Bench of the same High Court in Alembic Glass Industries case. The Bench also did not take note of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to in Amar Dye Chem. Ltd. case by the Tribunal. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the decision in A. No. E/2289/86-A is per incurium. Following the decision in Amar Dye Chem. Ltd. we hold that the excess duty collected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
