TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 765
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... B. Sharma (DR) appeared ORDER PER S K MOHANTY: The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Gypsum Board falling under Chapter 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period 1.7.2012 to 31.12.2012, the appellant resorted to provisional assessement in terms of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the ground that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provided to various dealers/ customers on the provisional value. 1.1 The refund applications filed by the appellant were disposed of vide the adjudication orders both dated 28.01.2014, wherein while sanctioning the refund claim of Rs. 9,39,176/- and Rs. 10,05,855/- filed by the appellant, the original authority had credited the said refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund(CWF) established by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disposed of vide impugned order dated 30.09.2014 upholding the views taken in the adjudication order. In the impugned order, it has been held that the appellant had charged and recovered the amount of duty paid as reflected in the invoices raised at the time of clearance of the goods. Hence this present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red during the relevant period. Besides, the appellant had also informed the refund sanctioning authority vide their dated 13.06.2013 that the duty amount on account of discount have not been recovered from the dealers/customers . The above facts have also been endorsed by the independent practicing Chartered Accountants, who on verification of the books of accounts of the appellant, vide certific....