TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tailed judgment and order of this Court on 14.05.2015 MRF v. Commissioner of T&T (Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 1 & 2/2015, decided on 14.05.2015). The relevant extract of that decision accepting the petitioner's plea is as follows: "33. On facts, the Revenue does not refute that in the scheme of turnover discount applied by the assessee here each of its dealers would be entitled to 1% rebate in the sale price irrespective of any particular sales target. It makes no difference, as held in the case of Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. (supra), that the discount was calculated at quarterly basis and accorded through "credit notes". The credit notes, issued pursuant to the understanding indicated in the sale invoices declaring upfront the entitlement of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorities did not permit any interest. Relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Suvidhe Ltd. v. UOI 1996 (82) ELT 177 (Bom), which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal proceedings reported as Union of India v. Suvidhe Ltd. 1997 94 ELT A 159 (SC), and the later judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Nestle India Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise 2003 (154) ELT 567. It was submitted that the amounts paid during the interregnum period, i.e. rejection of the turnover discount claimed by the original assessment order resulting in pre-deposit of the amounts before the appellate authority did not amount to payment of tax as it did not bear such character. It is emphasized that the refund ought to have c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s opinion, is untenable. The judgment in Suvidhe (supra) emphasized - although in the context of Section 11B (of the Central Excise Act) where the assessee had to approach and make a pre-deposit to the appellate authority- that such deposit sums would not amount to depositing or paying excise duty but rather to avail remedy of an appeal. The Bombay High Court observed as follows in Suvidhe Ltd. v. UOI 1996 (82) ELT 177 (Bom): 1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard parties. 2. Show cause notice issued by the Superintendent (Tech.) Central Excise to the petitioner to show cause why the refund claim for Excise Duty and Redemption fine paid in a sum of Rs. 14,07,410/- should be denied under Section 11B of the Central Ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....absolute in the aforestated terms. Respondents will pay the petitioners the cost of the petition." 4. The Supreme Court endorsed the view of the Bombay High Court. In Nestle India Limited (supra), the Karnataka High Court following the same thread of reasoning, held that the pre-deposit amount was not towards tax but rather to avail the remedy of an appeal. The subsequent judgment in W.S. Retail(supra)was rendered especially in the context of the provisions of the Karnataka VAT Act and other enactments. It relied upon the logic in Suvidhe (supra) and Nestle (supra) and stated as follows: "42. To the same effect, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Voltas Limited v. Union of India [1999 (112) ELT 34 (Delhi)], also held that the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e proper for the State/Department to augment the revenue collection by resorting to coercive steps before the defaulters get an opportunity to apply for and obtain the benefit of the Scheme, which otherwise can only defeat or frustrate the Scheme itself and in turn, the 'Policy' of the Government. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the course pursued by the respondents; issuing Ext. PA rejecting Ext. P2 preferred by the petitioner seeking the amount deposited as a token of willingness to clear the liability availing the benefit of the Scheme proposed in Ext. PI and consciously appropriating the said amount against 'interest' portion under the cover of Section 55C, is not correct or sustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set asid....