9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them was on the higher side inasmuch as subsequently they have issued credit notes to their distributors, to whom the goods were sold. They were issued a show-cause notice proposing rejection of the said refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment. The matter was adjudicated by the original adjudicating authority rejecting the said refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the benefits have been passed on to the ultimate customers. 2. The said order of the original adjudicating authority was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Thereafter an appeal was filed before Tribunal, who vide their Final Order No. 939/2009, dated 13-5-2009 took note of various decisions of the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he duty paid at the time of clearances of the goods on the assessable value is the final duty, in the absence of any provisional assessments. 4. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is impugned before Tribunal. 5. The contention of the learned advocate is that Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their appeal on merits and on the ground which was not the subject matter of the show cause notice. The proceedings out of the show-cause notice had travelled upto the Tribunal, when the matter was remanded only on the point of unjust enrichment and Commissioner (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to go beyond the scope of such proceedings and to reject the claim on altogether new issue. As regards unjust enrichment, he submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities with directions to reconsider the issue of unjust enrichment based upon the declaration of law by various courts. The original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim, in de novo proceedings on the basis of unjust enrichment only. 8. It is for the first time that when the appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) against the rejection of the refund claim vide adjudication order passed in de novo proceedings that Commissioner (Appeals) examined the refund claim on merits. Though I find acceptance in the reasononings of Commissioner (Appeals) that when the quantitative discounts were not known at the time of removal of the goods and the duty was paid on the higher assessable value, subsequent reduction of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The dealer who had obtained the goods from the manufacturer may charge to his buyer the full amount of duty ignoring the duty receipt of the manufacturer and the said fact cannot be a ground for denying the refunds to the manufacturer. Apart from that I also note that the Tribunal while remanding the matter has taken the note of other decisions of the Tribunal. The original adjudicating authority in remand proceedings has not adverted to the said decisions and has rejected the refund claim on the same very limited ground, which was adopted by him in the first round of litigation. 10. It is not disputed that the appellant has given quantitative discounts to their distributors and have issued credit notes to them. The distributors are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
