9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which action was confirmed by the Tribunal. This Court is in full agreement with the said view. In view of the concurrent finding of fact and law by the authorities below, we find no reason to differ. - Court finds no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the Tribunal. In any event, nothing survives for adjudication in the matter in view of the judgment in ARR Sales Agency (2014 (9) TMI 478 - Madras High Court) and, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed - Decided against assessee. - C.M.A. NO. 1347 OF 2008 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2014 - R. SUDHAKAR AND R. KARUPPIAH, JJ. For The Appellant : K. Soundarrajan For The Respondent. : M. Santhanaraman JUDGMENT R. Sudhakar, J. - Aggrieved by the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s found that the price in the sales invoices of the claimant has been arrived at after deducting the duty element specifically shown and no other amount as excise duty or otherwise has been collected from the buyers, that as per the balance sheet and other financial accounts the excise duty has been shown as expenditure and that as the net price amount (i.e., less the excise duty paid) arrived at in the sales invoices only has been charged from the buyers. Hence, in view of the above, it is to be held that the claimant had borne the duty incidence and accordingly, I pass the following order :- ORDER I sanction refund of ₹ 2.25,044/= (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand and Forty Four only) to the claimant out of the total refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the order of the Tribunal, the appellant is before this Court by filing the present appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 6. We have perused the facts as has been recorded by the Original Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals). Here is a case where the appellant seeks refund of duty paid through Modvat. The final products, admittedly, are not dutiable and, therefore, the benefit of Modvat credit is also not available in respect of inputs as per the provisions of the Modvat at the relevant point of time. There is no provision in the MODVAT, which provides for refund of duty paid on inputs. In such circumstances, the authorities below had rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der protest. On the facts noted above, admittedly, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Second Proviso to Section 11-B (1). The relevant date for the purpose of this case, is the one as defined under Section 11-B (5) Explanation (B) (e), which states that the relevant date shall be, in the case of a person other than the manufacturer, the date of purchase of goods by such person. Thus, the definition of relevant date clearly stares against the case of the appellant and as rightly held by the Tribunal, the claim for refund is only barred by limitation. Accordingly, no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. In such view of this matter, this Court finds no reason to take a view different from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
