TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rer of anti-rabies human vaccine. They had filed a refund claim for Rs.1,47,423/- on 28.2.2014 being excess duty paid inadvertently for the months of February and March 2013 at the time of clearance from their factory gate to five institutional buyers. On scrutiny of the refund claim, it appeared that the appellant has not produced evidence to prove that the tax element has not been passed on to the buyers. After due process of law, the original authority rejected the entire refund claim of Rs.1,47,423/- under sec. 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Against such order, appellant preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri M.V. Vis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods cleared to various agencies and customers but in the case of supply for institutions, they enter into an agreement on a price (i.e, Cum- duty value) agreed upon by both the parties for a fixed period of time; ▪ The duty has been worked out and paid on the total value (i.e, the cum duty value) agreed upon for the supply of goods instead of the actual assessable value. ▪ The refund claim is within limitation. ▪ The excess duty paid by the Appellants was verified with the invoices and found to be in order. ▪ The price agreed upon by the claimant for the supply of goods is cum-duty price i.e, price inclusive of excise duty. ▪ Free supplies were made out of duty paid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spute. The dispute relates to the claim of refund for excess duty stated to have been paid inadvertently by the appellant for the months of February and March 2013 at the time of clearance from their factory gate. The appellant states that they clear goods to institutions, as per a Cum-duty value agreement wherein the price is inclusive of excise duty only. VAT etc gets paid only on clearance by their C&F agents to the consumers and no duty other than excise duty is paid on cum duty value by the Appellant at the time of clearance of goods from the factory to the C&F agents. 5. They had submitted excise invoices, commercial invoices and the extract of month-wise PLA for the impugned period along with the refund application and have explai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on such samples have not been passed on to the customers. 8. While it is true that new evidence is normally not allowed at the appeal stage, the C.A.'s statement is only a summation of the details in the appellants record already submitted to the department. Its use will only help answer the query's raised. In fact it is a department prescribed document for the sanction of refunds. 9. Further what the appellant is claiming is only a double payment of excise duty which could easily have been verified from the invoices and the price agreed for sale, to the institution buyers. The appellants claim that since the excise duty alone was paid for the second time at the factory gate there was no mention about the exact quantum of other taxes ....