9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the event the manufacturer wished to pay duty under protest they should have debited the differential duty through Modvat/PLA accounts, in relation to removal of such goods at their end instead of showing the full incidence of duty in the invoices or supplementary invoices to that effect should not have been issued. (ii) It may be seen that at the material time, the details of invoicewise entry for payment by customer to manufacturer are indicative of the fact that out of invoice price only duty element is not paid to manufacturer which appears suspect. The party's claim that enhanced duty liability was refused to be paid by it's customer is not correct inasmuch as the amount of duty shown in the invoice were not disputed by the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cturer and the same has been established by valid evidences comprising of Chartered Accountant's certificate and Balance sheet of the appellant and their customer M/s. Heinz India Ltd. The adjudicating authority has further failed to note that the customers M/s. Heinz India Ltd. has refused to pay the differential duty pending resolution of the issue before the Delhi High Court as per letter dated 20-3-1998, Thus the appellant's plea is tenable............……………" ………......"The adjudicating authority's finding as regards to the different certificates produced by the appellant, it is seen that for want of explanation as to why the invoice raised for excise was not paid and why the invoices were not got amended if higher price was not be paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccountants Certificate and the balance sheet should necessarily be considered to distinguish the transaction of the appellant with the customer M/s. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. and vice versa…………" "In the light of the fact that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyer M/s. Heinz India Ltd., there is no question of grant of refund either to the buyer i.e. M/s. Heinz India Ltd. or the ultimate consumer who has not even applied for refund or transfer of the amount of refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The refund has been sanctioned and transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund……….." "The arguments of the appellants on the action of the adjudicating authority amounts to traverses beyond the show cause notice, is a clear breach of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given to them. Therefore, the order of the adjudicating authority transferring the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund is not correct…………" ".............It is further seen that the adjudicating authority has not accepted the chartered accountant certificate of the appellant certifying that the incidence of duty has not been passed on by them to the buyer. However, the reasons given by the adjudicating authority for not accepting the certificate are not sufficient to deny the refund. Similarly, the adjudicating authority has not accepted the certificate from chartered accountant of the buyer i.e. M/s Heinz India Ltd. certifying that no differential duty has been paid to M/s Heinz India Ltd, without giving sufficient reasons. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
