9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 35,91,361/-, while assessee is aggrieved by the order rejecting refund claim of Rs. 4,39,002/-. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. The issue involved in this case is that the assessee appellant had filed a refund claim of Rs. 71,78,191/- under Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with the department on the ground that they had paid excess central excise duty in terms of the price revision clause as be the agreement with purchasers. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims. On an appeal, the first appellate authority after going through the entire case records came to a conclusion that appellant assessee is eligible for a refund of Rs. 35,91,361/- and ineligible for refund claim of Rs. 4,39,002/-. For coming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... means, the appellant has refunded the money to that extent to the buyer due to downward revision of price. It means that, after issue of credit note, the transaction value has been reduced. The reduced transaction value is cum duty price. The duty was paid taking higher transaction value into consideration whereas actual transaction value is less. It results in claiming refund. When less value is collected from buyer, it can not be said that the duty burden has been passed on. It is because, duty is the component of the price of the goods received by the manufacturer. The buyer has not shared the burden of that duty component which is constituent of that price which is not paid by the buyer. The case law reported in 2003 (161) ELT 460 (Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,002/- is time barred. It is seen from the records that the assessee had issued credit note in March 2003 and refund claim is filed on 5th April, 2004 which is beyond the period of 12 months as mandated in Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of the forgoing appeal filed by the appellant assessee (Appeal No. E/1224/09) is rejected. 9. As regards the appeal filed by the revenue, I find that the grounds taken by the revenue in the appeal memoranda that the first appellate authority has relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Addison & Co. Ltd. is incorrect, as the matter is contested in the Supreme Court; the amount claimed as refund will be enriching the assessee unjustly, in as much that the assessee' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
