TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 890
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Addison & Co. Ltd -2016-VIL-49-SCCE . He submits that though the appellant have initially charged the service tax to the customers but subsequently returned the same by issuing the credit note, therefore, there is no unjust-enrichment on the part of the appellant. He further submits that even though the appellant have initially charged service tax to the customer, the same was not further passed on by the said customers to any other person. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- * CCE Vs. Addison & Co. Ltd -2016-VIL-49-SC-CE * Jai Crop Ltd Vs. CCE - 2016 -VIL-834-CESTAT-MUM-CE * Larsen & Tourbo Limited Vs. CCE - 2020- VIL- 133-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(73) E.L.T. 331 (Tribunal)] that the turnover discount is not an admissible abatement on the ground that the quantum of discount was not known prior to the removable of the goods. In an appeal filed by the respondent-Assessee, this Court by its judgment dated 11-3-1997 in Addison & Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras (supra) held that the turnover discount is an admissible deduction. This Court approved the normal practice under which discounts are given and held that the discount is known to the dealer at the time of purchase. The Additional Solicitor General submitted that any credit note that was raised post clearance will not be taken into account for the purpose of a refund by the Department. We do not agree with the said s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the benefit of the consumers as provided in Section 12D. 35. The respondent-Assessee is a 100 per cent Export Oriented Unit (EOU) manufacturing cotton yarn. The respondent filed an application for refund of an amount of Rs. 2,00,827/- on 14-8-2002 on the ground that it had paid excess excise duty at the rate of 18.11 per cent instead of 9.20 per cent. The Assessee initially passed on the duty incidence to its customers. Later the Assessee returned the excess duty amount to its buyers which was evidenced by a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant on 2-8-2002. The refund claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur Division vide an order dated 24-9-2002 on the ground that the Assessee did not subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat it is not entitled for the refund of the excess duty paid. In view of the facts of this case being different from Civil Appeal No. 7906 of 2002, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed." * This issue has already been considered by this tribunal in the case of Jai Crop Ltd (Supra) wherein the Tribunal has passed the following order. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in principal held that sales tax even though paid subsequently, the same is a permissible deduction. Accordingly, excise duty attributed to the said sales tax amount is refundable. However, he held that since the full invoice value was recovered by the appellant from the buyer,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was returned and certificate to this effect was produced by the learned Counsel, however, this is subsequent development. The said certificate was not produced before the Adjudicating Authority. However, the same was produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) but from the findings of Commissioner (Appeals), I observe that said certificate was not considered. I find that as per the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Addison & Co. Limited (supra), even though initially the amount was passed on but if the same is subsequently reversed by returning the amount of refund to the service provider, it was held that the incidence has not been passed on. Therefore, in the present case also, even though initially the amount of servi....