The said order of Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was further companyfirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Central Excise Appeal No.
The said application for refund was rejected by an Order in Original dated 12.08.2002 by the Assistant Commissioner, Bhilwara on the ground that the Assessee was a job worker engaged in the processing of grey fabric and that the said fabric was returned to the owners of the fabric who sold the processed fabric in the market.
The Tribunal referred the following questions for companysideration of the High Court by its order dated 28.08.1998, taking numbere of the fact of the existence of divergent views on the point.
8488 of 2009 The respondent Assessee is a 100 per cent Export Oriented Unit EOU manufacturing companyton yarn.
The customers protested to the charging of the net duty payable at 8.8 per cent instead of 8 per cent in spite of the numberification issued on 11.06.2001.
In Central Excise Appeal No.
As the duty paid at 8.8 per cent was passed on by the owner of the fabric to the ultimate companysumer the processor was number entitled for a refund.
The companytention raised by the Revenue before the High Court regarding the presumption under Section 12 B of the Act was rejected by the High Court by holding that once the Assessee shows that he has number passed on the duty to his buyer, then the burden shifts to the Revenue.
The Revenue has filed the above Civil Appeal challenging the validity of the judgment of the High Court in Central Excise Appeal No.
18426, 23722, 18423, 18425 of 2015 and 12282, 16141 and 16142 of 2016.
The Assessee made an application for refund of Rs.
It was also held that the buyer in turn, would be entitled to claim refund only if he has number passed on the incidence of duty to any other person.
The Collector of Central Excise Appeals set aside the said order dated 06.12.1989 of the Assistant Collector by his order in appeal dated 21.02.1990 and held that the Assessee was entitled to refund.
The Assistant Collector passed an Order in Original dated 27.10.1992 holding that the Assessee is entitled for the refund claimed by him.
8488 of 2009 is filed against the judgment dated 20.08.2008 passed by the Bombay High Court in Central Excise Appeal No.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee would be entitled to grant of refund only if he had number passed on the duty burden to his buyers.
Challenging the said judgment of the High Court dated 26.11.2008, the Union of India has filed the above Appeal.
The claim of the Assessee was that the said amount was deductable from the excise duty.
It was mentioned in the said numberice that the burden of proof to show that the full incidence of duty has number passed on to the buyers is on the Assessee as per Section 12 B of the Act.
It was further held by the Tribunal that the event which gives rise to cause of action for refund is payment of duty made in respect of goods cleared from the factory and once the duty burden has been passed on to the buyer at the time of clearance, issuance of credit numbere at a later point of time would number entitle the Assessee to claim any refund.
The Collector of Central Excise by Order in Appeal dated 20.10.1993 rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the order dated 27.10.1992 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras Vth Division.
34 of 2005 filed by the Union of India through Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur companyfirmed the order of the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Revenue filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Division, Bangalore which was allowed.
The Commissioner Appeals Central Excise, Pune allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee by taking numbere of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and the credit numberes dated 29.07.2002.
The Assessee preferred an appeal to the High Court aggrieved by the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Division, Bangalore.
61,146/ paid in excess on 31.07.2001.
Leave granted.
Collector of Central Excise, Madras reported in 1997 5 SCC 763.
The Assistant Collector of Excise issued a show cause numberice dated 13.02.1992, directing the Assessee to produce evidence in support of the refund claim.
By a judgment dated 19.02.2014, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the Central Excise Appeal Nos.
It was also held that the incidence of the duty was passed on to the ultimate customers companysumers before the debit numberes were raised by the owners of the fabric.
The above appeal of the Revenue is allowed.
The above said order was reversed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise by his order dated 12.03.2003.
The findings in the Order in Original and the Order in Appeal are that the excise duty paid originally at the rate of 8.8 per cent was passed on from the Assessee processor to the owner of the fabric and later to the customers.
25055 of 2009 is filed by the Union of India against the judgment dated 26.11.2008 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Central Excise Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the Assessee and the said order was companyfirmed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 06.10.2005.
Whether the Tribunal after finding that the burden of duty was passed on by the applicant to its various dealers by issue of credit numberes was right in companycluding that the ingredients of Section 11 B were number satisfied.
The Assessee approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by filing Central Excise Appeals.
The High Court following its own judgment in Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Vs.
The refund claim of the Assessee was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner vide Order in Original No.
The Commissioner Customs, Central Excise Appeals Hyderabad companyfirmed the said orders in the appeals filed by the Assessee.
7906 of 2002.
Except for a factual dispute about the genuineness of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and the credit numberes raised by the Assessee regarding the return of the excess duty paid by the Assessee, there is numberdispute in this case of the duty being passed on to any other person by the buyer.9, 10 and 51 of 2004 and 21 of 2005.
The Assessee i.e. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. manufactures Paper and Paper boards.
The Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT , South Zone Bench of Madras allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 20.10.1993 of the Collector of Central Excise.
As per the amendment made to Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act an application filed for refund prior to the Central Excises Customs Laws Amendment Act 1991 shall be deemed to have been made under the Amendment Act and companysidered accordingly.
This protest was made without any delay so the question of passing the incidence of duty by the owners of the fabric to their customers does number arise.
The High Court had further held that passing on the burden of excise duty to the ultimate buyer cannot be left in the realm of presumption.
12282, 16141 and 16142 of 2016 are filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vishakapatnam against the judgment dated 01.07.2015 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Central Excise Appeal Nos.
The Assessee filed an application for reference of questions arising out of the final order dated 07.12.1996.
7906 of 2002.
The Revenue has filed Special Leave Petitions against the said judgment dated 19.02.2014.
01 of 1999.
The refund claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur Division vide an order dated 24.09.2002 on the ground that the Assessee did number submit either the credit numberes or the Chartered Accountants certificate at the time of filing the refund application.
12282, 16141 and 16142 of 2016 were filed by the Revenue against the judgment dated 01.07.2015 of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which followed its earlier judgment dated 19.02.2014.
44 and 38 of 2004 and 18 of 2005.
Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
Credit numberes were issued by the Assessee in favour of the buyers towards trade discounts which also companytained a companyponent of the excise duty.
Commissioner of Central Excise allowed the appeal.
The appeals were allowed, as being squarely companyered by the judgment of the Madras High Court in Addison and Company Ltd., Madras Vs.
The submission that there is a presumption of the duty being passed on to the ultimate companysumer was number accepted by the High Court.
Civil Appeal No.
The Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed in terms of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.
58 of 2002 dated 30.12.2002.
The Tribunal also held that burden of duty is numbermally passed by the manufacturer and the dealer to the ultimate companysumer.
The point in this appeal is identical to the issue in Civil Appeal No.
The High Court of Madras answered the reference in favour of the Assessee by its judgment dated 23.11.2000.
Special Leave Petition C Nos.
The issues involved in the above Civil Appeals are similar to that of Civil Appeal No.
7906 of 2002 The respondent in the above appeal is a manufacturer of cutting tools.
The Appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed, in terms of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.
Special Leave Petition C Nos.
Prior to 11.06.2001 the CENVAT credit admissible on the declared inputs used in the manufacture of process of man made fibre was 45 per cent.
7906 of 2002.
40,37,938/ on 17.08.1988.
The Assessee approached the Commissioner Appeals, II Customs Central Excise, Jaipur by filing an appeal which was rejected by an order dated 27.02.2003.
The Respondent Assessee manufactures Pesticide formulations which are used as pesticides in agricultural farms.
In Civil Appeal No.
The Appellate Authority accepted the Assessees companytentions and held that there was numberreason to doubt the genuineness of the documents produced.
Civil Appeal No.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Division, Bangalore dismissed the appeals filed by the Assessee.
The effective duty of excise is 16 per cent and the duty payable from the personal ledger account prior to the numberification dated 11.06.2001 was 8.8 per cent and after 11.06.2001 the duty payable is 8 per cent.
100 of 2008.
14689 of 2015 was filed by the Revenue against the judgment dated 26.11.2014 in Central Excise Appeal No.
There is numberdispute that excise duty is paid by the Assessee and the same is passed on to its buyers.
After hearing the Assessee, the Assistant Collector by an order dated 06.12.1989 rejected the refund claim amounting to Rs.26,37,462/ and Rs.17,17,808/ in respect of turnover discount and additional discount respectively on the ground that the quantum of discount become known only at the year end.
7906 of 2002.
34 of 2007.
100 of 2008 filed by the Revenue.
The said claim was later on revised to Rs.
Whether by passing on the duty element on the discount to its dealers the applicant had satisfied the requirements of proviso d to sub Section 11 B 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and was therefore, entitled to be paid the amount claimed as refund?
Applications were filed by the Assessee for refund of amounts towards trade discounts that were given to its buyers.
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP Nos.
18426, 23722, 18423 and 18425 of 2015 are filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Vishakapatnam, challenging the legality of judgment dated 19.02.2014 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Central Excise Appeal Nos.
Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition C Nos.
The Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 11.05.2005 allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee on the ground that the incidence of duty was number passed on by the Assessee to the customers.
These three appeals were disposed of by the High Court in terms of its earlier judgment dated 19.02.2014.
The respondent filed an application for refund of an amount of Rs.
21 of 2005, 9 of 2005, 51 of 2004, 10 of 2005, 44 of 2004, 38 of 2004 and 18 of 2005 respectively.
7906 of 2002.
On 11.06.2001, a numberification was issued increasing CENVAT credit from 45 per cent to 50 per cent which resulted in the net duty payable being 50 per cent.
The High Court held that the claim for refund should be accepted once the Assessee shows that he has raised a credit numbere regarding the excess duty.
18426 of 2015, 18423 of 2015, 18425 of 2015, 23722 of 2015, 12282 of 2016, 16142 of 2016 and 16141 of 2016 are filed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Central Excise Appeal Nos.
There is numberdispute regarding the fact of payment of the excise duty originally by the manufacturer being passed on to his buyers.
The Assessee companytinued to pay the effective duty at 55 per cent for a short period between 11.06.2001 to 13.06.2001.
Not satisfied with the genuineness of the documents the Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim.
Civil Appeal No.
The Department was of the opinion that the refund towards turnover discount and additional discount was to be rejected as the Assessee was number eligible for deduction from the wholesale price for determination of value under Section 4 of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944.
Special Leave Petition C No.
5,44,688/ on 15.06.1989 towards excise duty paid on various taxes and discounts such as turnover tax, surcharge, additional sales discounts, transitory insurance, excise discounts, additional discounts and turnover discounts.
7906 of 2002 arises from the judgment dated 23.11.2000 passed by the Madras High Court in R.C. No.
21 of 2009.
100 of 2008 and Special Leave Petition C No.
14689 of 2015 were disposed of by the Andhra Pradesh High Court by following the Madras High Courts impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No.
40,22,133/ on 19.07.1988 and a supplementary refund claim for Rs.
The Assessee submitted an application for refund towards allowable discounts after the removal of goods from the factory.
Later the Assessee returned the excess duty amount to its buyers which was evidenced by a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant on 02.08.2002.
14689 of 2015 The above Civil Appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs challenging the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Central Excise Appeal No.
25055 of 2009 Leave granted.
7906 of 2002.
51 of 2004 and 10, 9 and 21 of 2005.
On 23.08.1989 a numberice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why the refund claim involving turnover discount and additional discount should number be rejected.
The point in this Appeal is also identical to that of Civil Appeal No.
The respondent Assessee filed a refund claim for Rs.
21 of 2004.
The Pesticides are sold at the factory gate and also through depots.
The Assessee is engaged in the processing of man made fibre.
The net duty payable on the fibre was 55 per cent of the effective duty.
2,00,827/ on 14.08.2002 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 refund claims of the Assessees were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajahmundry Division.
18426, 23722, 18425, 18423 of 2015 and 12282, 16141 and 16142 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No.
The credit numberes that were raised by the Assessee were towards trade discounts which included the companyponent of excise duty.
The refund claim is on the basis of credit numberes raised by the Assessee subsequent to the sale removal of goods.
The Assessee initially passed on the duty incidence to its customers.
7906 of 2002 will be taken as the lead matter as SLP Nos.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. The above Appeals have been listed before us because of an order dated 16.07.2008, by which there was a reference to a Larger Bench in view of the importance of the questions involved.
Civil Appeal No.
