9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant. Appeal No. E/725/2011-Mum is on the issue of rejection of refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment and Appeal No. E/724/2011-Mum is on the issue of recovery of the erroneous refund of the same amount. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant manufactured and sold the goods to their wholesale buyers under Quantity Rebate Scheme and paid the duty on the value prevailing at the time of clearance of the goods under Section 4 of the Act. However, under the Quantity Rebate Scheme, after supply of the goods the appellant allowed the quantity discount to their buyer. In respect of the quantity discount, credit notes for the amount of discount along with duty paid thereupon were issued. In respect of these excess paid du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid Order-in-Appeal was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority to consider the matter in the light of Sahakari Khand Udyog 2005 (181) ELT 328 (S.C.). In the de novo proceedings, the adjudicating authority vide Order-In-Original No. 01/RN/Th-I/2008 confirmed the demand of Rs. 9,35,707/- along with interest. The said OIO was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal therefore the appellant is before me. 3. Ms. Padmavati Patil Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the refund was rejected only on the ground of unjust enrichment. She submits that there is no dispute in respect of quantity discount. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order. He submits that in the Tribunals remand order, it is clearly observed that the appellant have not submitted all the necessary documents by which it can be proved that incidence of refund amount has not been passed on to any other person. In the Order-in-Original as well as the impugned order. It was observed that no documentary evidence were submitted, therefore the appellant could not establish that the incidence of refund amount has not been passed on to any other person. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) M/s. Fenner India Ltd. Vs. CESTAT -2015-TIOL-2203-HC-MAD-CX (ii) M/s. Fenner India Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai-2014 (305) E.L.T.524 (Mad.) (iii) M/s. Videocon International Ltd. Vs. CCE-2014-TIOL-50-CESTAT- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed to the appellant. The adjudicating authority shall dispose of the de novo adjudication within a period of three months from the receipt of this order. The appellant shall be given sufficient opportunity of personal hearing as well as for producing the documents. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. As regard appeal No. E/724/2011 it is in respect of the recovery of the refund amount involved in the appeal No. E/725/2011. The recovery of refund is consequential to the rejection of refund claim, therefore this appeal is also remanded to the original authority to decide after deciding the refund matter. Both the appeals are disposed of by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority.
(Pronounced & Dictated in court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
