9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss duty paid by them during the period March, 2006 to August 2009 in respect of bulk supply of explosives to M/s Coal India Ltd. The refund arose due to the fact that the Appellant cleared explosives to M/s Coal India Ltd. (A Govt. of India Undertaking) on a provisional price, as per contract, on payment of appropriate central excise duty. On finalization of the price, at a lower rate, the Appellants claimed refund of differential duty, accordingly. The adjudicating authority though sanctioned the refund of duty, but directed to transfer the same to Consumer Welfare Fund observing that the Appellants had failed to establish that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to their customer, M/s Coal India Ltd. Aggrieved, the Appellants pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. CCEx., Raipur : 2005 (192) ELT 331 (Tri.-Del.) ;(iii) CCEx., Mangalore Vs. Keltech Energies Ltd. : 2008 (232) ELT 306 (Tri.-Chennai) ;(iv) K. J. V. Alloys Conductors P. Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Hyderabad : 2012 (275) ELT 90 (Tri.-Bang.). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. Undisputedly, the Appellants are entitled to refund of the Central Excise duty paid in excess during the relevant period. The only issue needs determination is: whether the Appellants could able to discharge the burden in establishing the fact that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to their customer, M/s Coal India Ltd. and consequently eligible to the refund amount. I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had discussed in detail the issue, in particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat Credit on the duty paid on explosives and those were consumed by them. With regard to the 'Credit Notes', it is to be stated that, the document said to be credit notes is actually a tax invoice showing the amount excess collected to enable Coal India to adjust it with the future payments. It is not similar to the 'Credit Notes' referred in the Board's Circular. Further, it is a settlement of price either higher or lower side, in the course of finalization of provisional assessment, and not a price reduction subsequent to sale as envisaged in the Board's Circular. 6. I agree with the aforesaid reasoning of the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals). Besides, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has also referred to several decisions of this Tribunal vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
