9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1125 nos. of tyres against the purchase order issued by the Commandant, Central Ordnance Depot, Mumbai during the period from 11.06.2008 to 14.06.2008. The rate quoted in the purchase order was Rs. 7,700/- plus excise duty plus VAT per tyre. But the respondent had charged @ Rs. 8,742/- per tyre plus excise duty plus VAT. After noticing that the cost of tyre was more than what was mentioned in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he refund claim cannot be accepted. What is relevant is the price shown in the Invoice and the excise duty charged thereon and once the duty liability is shown in the invoice, the purchaser after receiving the credit note still may be able to pass on the duty liability subsequently or take Cenvat Credit and therefore just because a Credit Note is issued the refund claim cannot be considered. He re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in this case the refund claim has been allowed by the first appellate authority on merit and after taking note of the fact that central excise duty has not been passed on to any other person. He submits that it is quite clear that Central Ordnance Depot would not have taken Cenvat Credit nor would have sold the tyres to someone else and therefore the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
