TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 905
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpetent authority, of claim for refund of Rs. 2,32,377.30, representing the duty component in debit note dated 3 March 2009 issued to them for Rs. 16,59,490 in relation to 'aluminium signage' supplied to M/s Mumbai International Airport Ltd in 2008. 2. In terms of work order dated 22nd February 2008 issued by M/s Mumbai International Airport Ltd, for a unit price of Rs. 7875, appellant was required to supply 'signage' with dimension of 8 cm x 20 m; though this was amended to reduce the dimension to 8 cm x 100 cm by order dated 23rd April 2008, the unit price remained unchanged. Against four invoices issued between 27th of June 2008 and 30th June 2008 for Rs. 17,32,500, 220 pieces were supplied but, upon belated realization, the work orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supplied, the presumption that alteration of dimensions would not impact the unit price is not borne by logic; there is a substantial difference between material consumption on a 'signage' that spans 20 m and on one that is 1 m long. There is no inconsistency in the downward revision of the unit price in consequence; no evidence is on record to establish that this is not so. The issue that remains for consideration, and on which the submissions of both sides have predominated, is the acceptability of a debit note issued long after the goods were cleared on payment of duty for re-determination of the assessable value. 6. According to Learned Counsel, the existence of the debit note should suffice as evidence of the consideration received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in 2000. That was rendered in the context of discounts whereas the present dispute pertains to goods on which the contractual value was not commensurately altered despite alteration of the specifications. The decision in re Addison & Co Ltd was more concerned with the discharge of burden of disproving the passing on of incidence of duty by recourse to credit notes. 8. The responsibility that emerges from the cited decisions is that the value that was agreed upon between the buyer and the seller at the time of clearance, and not any subsequent alterations arising from circumstances unknown at the time of clearance, should determine the assessable value. It has been brought on record that the appellant and the recipient of the goods had i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 enabling the person who discharged duty liability and the buyer to claim such excess duty recovery. In the present instance, in so far as goods are concerned, there is only one level of transaction and, in relation to that one level, it is established by the debit note that the duty included in the excess billing has also been withheld from the appellant. 11. It is only when the first buyer trained in those goods, or even uses those goods for the manufacture of further excisable goods, that the question of the lag between the charging of duty at the time of clearance and the disclaiming of such duty becomes relevant to ascertainment of having born the incidence of duty. Such is not the case in the present....