https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115111 Trade and quantity discounts routed through depots were treated as part of the price structure where the material showed they were known before removal, so non-filing of a declaration under Rule 173C could not by itself defeat the claim. Refund claims also required fresh examination because the authorities had not correlated factory and depot invoices or verified the price circular to confirm discount availability at removal, and had not fully examined the plea of unjust enrichment. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded for reconsideration on these issues. en-us Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 May 2012 18:10:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115111 Trade and quantity discounts routed through depots were treated as part of the price structure where the material showed they were known before removal, so non-filing of a declaration under Rule 173C could not by itself defeat the claim. Refund claims also required fresh examination because the authorities had not correlated factory and depot invoices or verified the price circular to confirm discount availability at removal, and had not fully examined the plea of unjust enrichment. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded for reconsideration on these issues. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115111