2013 (3) TMI 298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....007 and held that they were eligible for refund of Rs. 9,50,745/-. However, holding that the appellants have not crossed the bar of unjust enrichment, the original authority ordered crediting the said amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund. Order of the original authority stands upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Learned authorized representative submitted that the goods were provisionally assessed as they used to pass on trade discount based on volume of sales achieved by the dealers. Such discounts were granted based on the sales effected quarterly, half yearly and yearly basis. At the close of the concerned quarter, half-year and year, the eligibility of discount for each dealer is to be determined and, thereupon, they issued credi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the consumers. 5. Learned SDR submits that the party has clearly mentioned the excise duty in the invoices raised under Section 12 of the Central Excise Act and passed on the burden to their customers. Their subsequent act of issuing credit notes cannot amount to not passing on the burden of duty to their customers. He also submits that the reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Addison & Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 44 (Mad.) is misplaced as in the said case, the dispute related to July, 88 to June, 89. The issue decided in the said case was basically whether for the purpose of unjust enrichment, the transactions bet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lt with a dispute relating to the years 1988 & 1989, when the law governing unjust enrichment was not applicable in respect of provisional assessment case. The facts of the case in Addison & Co. (supra) are thus qualitatively and significantly different from the facts of the present case. 6.3 The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of A.K. Spintex Ltd. (supra) dealt with the case of assessee taking 45% deemed credit on inputs while they were in fact eligible for 50% of the credit during the relevant period. In that context, the passing on burden of duty on their finished product was being considered. In facts of the said case, the Tribunal's decision in permitting refund was not interfered with. The ratio of the d....