TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant. Appeal No. E/725/2011-Mum is on the issue of rejection of refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment and Appeal No. E/724/2011-Mum is on the issue of recovery of the erroneous refund of the same amount. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant manufactured and sold the goods to their wholesale buyers under Quantity Rebate Scheme and paid the duty on the value prevailing at the time of clearance of the goods under Section 4 of the Act. However, under the Quantity Rebate Scheme, after supply of the goods the appellant allowed the quantity discount to their buyer. In respect of the quantity discount, credit notes for the amount of discount along with duty paid thereupon were issued. In respect of these excess paid dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id Order-in-Appeal was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority to consider the matter in the light of Sahakari Khand Udyog 2005 (181) ELT 328 (S.C.). In the de novo proceedings, the adjudicating authority vide Order-In-Original No. 01/RN/Th-I/2008 confirmed the demand of Rs. 9,35,707/- along with interest. The said OIO was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal therefore the appellant is before me. 3. Ms. Padmavati Patil Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the refund was rejected only on the ground of unjust enrichment. She submits that there is no dispute in respect of quantity discount. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order. He submits that in the Tribunals remand order, it is clearly observed that the appellant have not submitted all the necessary documents by which it can be proved that incidence of refund amount has not been passed on to any other person. In the Order-in-Original as well as the impugned order. It was observed that no documentary evidence were submitted, therefore the appellant could not establish that the incidence of refund amount has not been passed on to any other person. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) M/s. Fenner India Ltd. Vs. CESTAT -2015-TIOL-2203-HC-MAD-CX (ii) M/s. Fenner India Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai-2014 (305) E.L.T.524 (Mad.) (iii) M/s. Videocon International Ltd. Vs. CCE-2014-TIOL-50-CESTAT-M....