TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 671
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in M/S ADDISON & CO. LTD., vs. CCE, MADRAS 1997(93)ELT 429, which has been subsequently reversed in favour of the assessee by the High Court of Madras in ADDISON AND CO. v. COMMISSIONER 2001 (129) E.L.T. 44 (Mad.), b. Whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the appeal of the appellant by relying on the decision rendered in the context of Section 11-C of the Act ignoring a direct decision of the High Court of Madras on the interpretation of provision of Section 11-B and 12-B, which are involved in this appeal. c. Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal of the appellant ignoring a direct judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in ADDISON & CO. LTD., MADRAS vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS 1997(91)ELT 532 (SC), wherein it was held that the manufacturer is entitled for refund of duty on account of the discounts allowed to the dealers subsequent to the time of removal of the goods, d. Whether the Tribunal was right in following the decision in which the relevant provisions have not been considered and decided in preference to a decision wherein the very same provisions have been considered and answered by a High Court? 2. For the purpose of dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner of Central Excise, who was the Primary Authority, had himself allowed the refund claims, which were reversed by the appellate authority - Commissioner (Appeals) filed by the department. Whereas in the transactions in CEA.Nos.9, 10 and 21 of 2005, the primary as well as appellate authorities and also the Tribunal had refused to grant the refund claims. As common questions of law and fact are involved in these appeals, they are being disposed off by common order. 5. The authorities below, in the orders, which were confirmed by the Tribunal, which are impugned in the present appeals, though accepted that the appellant had passed on the excise amount of duty collected to their dealers, had refused the claim for refund on the ground that the appellant had failed to produce evidence to the effect that the burden of duty was not passed on to any other person (to the ultimate customer by the dealer). 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the orders of CESTAT in the case of M/s Addison & Co. Ltd. vs CCE, Madras (1 supra). On further appeal, the CESTAT dismissed the appeals by passing a cryptic order, the operative portion of which reads as: "3. We have perused the records ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of allowing quantitative discounts and the aspect of adjustment of the excise duty in conformity with the discounts allowed. The learned counsel would distinguish the orders of the Tribunal in cases of Sangam Processors, Grasim Industries and S.Kumar's, as not applicable. 8. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar for the Department would support the orders of the Tribunal and would place heavy reliance on Grasim Ind. (Chemical Divn.) vs. C.C.E. Bhoopal (2003(153) E.L.T. 694 (Tri. - LB) supra) and would submit that the Tribunal had taken note of the Madras High Court judgment in Addison & Co. v. Commissioner (2001 (129) E.L.T. 44 (Mad.) supra) and further in the case of TVS ELECTRONICS LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF C.ED., CHENNAI 2012(286) E.L.T. 258, the Chennai Bench had distinguished the Madras High Court Judgment. He would also place reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal in COMMISIONMER OF C.EX.HYDERABAD vs. TFL QUINN INDIA PVT. LTD 2013 (294) E.L.T. 421 (Tri. - Bang.) and by placing reliance on this case, he would submit that for the purpose of decision of entitlement of refund, the onus lies on the manufacturer to establish, as a matter of fact,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is also not applicable to the case on hand. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in paragraph No.15 as under: "So far as the issuance of the credit note is concerned, the same was issued only on 7-8-1991 although the duty was paid on 19-7-1989 and, therefore, the credit note was issued after two years of the payment of the duty and the clearance of the goods. In this connection, Section 12 of the Central Excise Act becomes relevant which indicates that the party who is liable to pay excise duty on any goods, has to file the sales invoice and other documents relating to assessment at the time of clearance of the goods itself. Therefore, when at the time of clearance no such document was filed and what is sought to be relied upon is a document issued after two years, the same raises a doubt and cannot be accepted as a reliable document." 13. In so far as the order of the Larger Bench in Grasim Ind. (Chemical Divn.) v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bhopal (2003(153) E.L.T. 694 (Tri. - LB) supra), the judgment of the Madras High Court was sought to be ignored merely stating that Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. v. CCE (1994(71) E.L.T. 989 supra) was affirmed by the Sup....