2017 (1) TMI 799

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., for Appellant Shri L. Patra, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is filed by the appellant, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. against Order-in-Appeal No.48-CE/LKO/2006 dated 29/05/2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Lucknow. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant cleared High Speed Diesel ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the claim of refund. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original the appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who has decided the appeal through Order-in-appeal No.48-CE/LKO/2006 dated 29/05/2006. The Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the said refund was not hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment but the discount was not a admissible to the appellant therefore he has rejected the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Rs. 450/- per KL. She has submitted a copy of letter dated 28/07/2016 claimed to have been issued by UPSRTC, which was not issued under any letter head or was not bearing any impression of the rubber stamp. The Id. Counsel for the appellant has also relied on ruling by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore Versus Solaris Chemtech Ltd. re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has further argued that the agreement was entered into on 19/01/2004 therefore, the discount was not admissible to be deducted from invoice price for period prior to 19/01/2004. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Purolator India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-Ill reported at 2015 (323) E. L. T. 227 (S.C.....