2017 (5) TMI 506

Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.

⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision

2017 (5) TMI 506

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....missioner(AR) for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. ORDER The above appeal is filed by the Department being aggrieved by the order passed by Commissioner(Appeals) who set aside the rejection of refund claim. 2.  Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturers of electrical transformers and are registered with the Central Excise Department.  The respondents ar....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....cess payment is made, APCPDCL reserves the right to recover the same from the pending bills/guarantee, differential amount was adjusted by APCPDCL.  Thereupon, the respondents had paid excess duties due to the reduction in price.  The respondents filed a refund claim for the excess duty paid by them due to downward revision of price.  The original authority vide de novo adjudication....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....voking the price variation clause and they have adjusted the differential amount from the amount due to the respondent.  It is clear that the respondents have recovered the duty from APCPDCL at the time of sale.  Therefore the burden of duty has been passed on to the customer APCPDCL.  That therefore the Commissioner(Appeals) has erred in allowing the refund claim. 4.  None ap....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....nd complying with the price variation clause.  The respondents have worked out the amount paid in excess in respect of each invoice due to the downward revision of price.  So also the subsequent recovery of the amount by APCPDCL consequent to reduction of price is also brought out from the relevant ledger extracts of APCPDCL for the years 2008-09 to 2010-11.  The same is reflected i....

Contact Us At :

FAQs :

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

2017 (5) TMI 506