2024 (7) TMI 679

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wellery in the Budget 2012-13 vide Notification No. 12/2012-CE. Subsequently, this central excise levy was withdrawn retrospectively vide Notification No. 23/2012 dated 08.05.2012. The appellant had paid a total duty of Rs.14,85,598/- for the period from 17.03.2013 to 07.05.2012 through e-payments. Consequent to the withdrawal of the central excise duty on articles of jewellery, the appellant surrendered their Centra Excise Registration. They filed a refund-claim of the duty paid by them during the months of April 2012 and May 2012. A Show Cause Notice dated 26.12.2012 was issued proposing to reject the refund-claim. After due process of law, the Original Authority sanctioned the refund of Rs.14,85,598/-. But however, ordered the amount to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rom the factory to the depot at Coimbatore, while clearing the goods to the customers they had not mentioned any excise duty in the invoices. The appellant had not collected excise duty from the customers. Merely because, the appellant had mentioned excise duty while transferring the goods from their factory to their own marketing office (depot), the Adjudicating Authority has taken an erroneous view that the appellant has passed on the duty. In fact, the transfer of goods from the factory to the depot cannot be considered as a sale at all, even though excise duty was mentioned in the invoices. It was merely a stock transfer as the depot is the marketing office of the appellant. 2.2 The Ld. Counsel furnished copies of the invoices issued f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies. These documents would show that the excise duty paid to the government were shown as "receivables" in the balance sheet. The Ld. Counsel prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 3.1 The Ld. Authorised Representative Shri Harendra Singh Pal appeared for the Department. It is submitted that the appellant is having their Branch at Thrissur, Kerala. They had cleared goods on payment of duty at Thrissur as well as to Coimbatore. However, they have only produced a commercial invoice dated 19.03.2012 issued from their depot at Coimbatore. The total quantity of despatch made form the factory and sale from their outlet do not tally and there is no corelation between the clearances. They had produced attested copies of the relevant challan toward....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not been passed on to the customers. It is also seen stated that he has verified the documents. The Adjudicating Authority has not considered this report at all. We fail to understand why the Adjudicating Authority has not considered this report of the range officer who has gone to the appellant's premises and verified invoices as well as accounts maintained by the appellant. On the contrary, the Adjudicating Authority has on some assumptions held that appellant has passed on the duty to customers. On examining the invoices issued from the factory to the depot, we find that the appellant has mentioned 1% excise duty on the value of the goods. However, on the invoices issued from the depot to the customers, the appellant has not mentioned an....