9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s.Larsen & Toubro without any discount since the same was not updated in SAP for the period 1.4.08 to 26.5.08. 3. Excise on discount of Rs.950/- also got paid to excise authorities due to the mistake in discount t updation in SAP. 4. M/s.Larsen & Toubro has detected excise duty on Rs.950/- per MT. 3. A show cause notice dated 16/06/2009 was issued to the Appellants proposing to reject the claim, on the ground that the unit had not supplied original invoices and also not established that the excess payment made by M/s.IOCL has not been recovered from recipients i.e. M/s.Larsen & Toubro Ltd. The said show-cause notice was adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 18/05/2009 wherein the refund claim was rejected. 4. Being aggrieved by suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon the decision of the Tribunal in the following cases: 1. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. [2009 (93) RLT 479 (CESTAT), 2. Lanco Industries Ltd. (2009 (93) RLT 713 (CESTAT)], 3. Sandeep Metal Craft Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (226) ELT 428 (T)] 4. Sudhir Papers Ltd. [2012 (276) ELT 304 (Kar.)] 5. Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. [2011 (267) ELT 607 (Kar.)] 6. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. [2011 (217) ELT 191 (Kar.) 7. Bharat Box Factory Ltd. [2009 (13) STR 212 (P&H)] 8. A.K. Spintex Ltd. [2009 (234) ELT 41 (Raj.)] 9. Peacock Industries Ltd. [2008 (88) RLT 405 (CESTAT)] 10. Keltech Energies Ltd. [2010 (259) ELT A 107 (HC)] 7. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The only issue to be decided is whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above letter, the Appellants have also submitted a credit note memo bearing No.6282875 dated 26/12/08 for the excess duty billed to the party for the above said amount. They have also submitted the copies of PLA for the period 7.04.08 to 6.5.08 and for the period 7.5.08 to 6.6.08 along with the copies of challans, evidencing payment of duty on the clearance made by them. 8. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings that the Commissioner (A) has considered all records which were produced before him to justify as to non -passing of the incident of duty by assessee to their purchaser. I have also perused these two certificates which very clearly establish that the appellant was not paid by M/s. L&T for the amount of refund claimed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
