9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y which refund claims of the appellant were rejected. 2. By show cause notice dated 20-8-2003, the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why the claim of refund of Rs. 39,050/- made on 2-4-2003, on the ground that the amount was paid by mistake of the clerk on the basis of supplementary invoice Nos. 54, 55 and 56, all dated 31-5-2002, should not be recovered. 3. By show cause notice dated 17-6-2003, the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why its claim for refund of Rs. 29,584/- made on 2-4-2003 on the ground that their clerk by mistake debited that amount on the basis of supplementary invoice No. 57 dated 31-5-2002, should not be rejected. 4. As regards the claim relatable to supplementary invoice Nos. 54, 55 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit in respect of which was taken on the earlier invoices. Moreover, the credit having been taken on the supplementary invoices, question of refund of duty paid on the supplementary invoices did not arise and the fact that the buyer did not take credit in respect of goods initially cleared, did not entitle the appellants to claim refund because the duty was correctly paid at the time of clearances. 6. Since no one appeared for the appellant in these matters, the learned authorized representative for the Department has referred to the entire record and the contentions raised by the appellant and submitted that the authorities below have rightly rejected the claim of the appellant because, Modvat credit was availed by the receiver of the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % and by virtue of their refund claims for the excess payment over the rate of 9.6%, the refunds of Rs. 14,201/- and 11,834/- came to be sanctioned by the two orders dated 25-2-2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in which it was categorically found that there was no unjust enrichment by the appellant since the duty was not passed on to BHEL. Thus, the said two orders became final. 8. It appears from the original invoice Nos. 146, 199 and 235 that the appellant had included in the invoices basic excise duty at 9.6% on the job work done by them and in these bills after showing excise duty of 16% on the tube casting supplied by BHEL it was deducted on the ground that excise duty was paid by BHEL, as a result of which, on the total inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the said invoice Nos. 146, 199 and 235 which fact is apparent from those invoices because in each one of them the duty shown to be payable at 16% on the raw material received is deducted in the invoice itself and in the total invoice amount did not reflect. This is why it became necessary to issue supplementary invoices to pass on the duty burden at 9.6% on the raw material to BHEL which was not earlier passed on in the original invoices though deducted in the Modvat account. The supplementary invoice Nos. 54, 56 and 57 issued on 31-3-2003 clearly show that they were drawn only with a view to recover the excess duty at the rate of 9.6% from BHEL, it was earlier charged under the original invoices. Since the duty was already paid up by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
