ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of automobile parts. These parts are sold to Maruti Udyog Ltd. At the time of clearance of the parts the appellants discharges central excise duty. The present case relates to claim for refund of duty on the ground that prices were reduced retrospectively by their buyer, Maruti Udyog Ltd. It is submitted that price and duty have been paid by Maruti Udyog Ltd. only on the basis of the reduced prices. That refund application was rejected by the Central Excise authorities on the ground that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that duty paid by the appellant had not been passed on. Para six of the impugned order takes as under :-
“6. I have carefully considered the matter. The refund claim arose because of retrospective reduction of prices by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., buyer of the goods supplied by the appellant with regard to duty paid on the differential value. The period covered is of 1998-99 when no price list was submitted. The appellant has argued that as far as they are concerned, the buyer is M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. to whom the incidence of duty has not been passed. The goods were supplied to “spare parts division” for which there was a separate purchase order and price. The goods procured by spares division are for market sale. There is nothing on record to establish that the benefit was passed on to the ultimate consumer. The customer pays a price but that price includes various components such as value plus taxes plus margin for the wholesale dealer etc. the appellant’s plea in this regard is therefore no acceptable. No evidence has been produced to prove that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the ultimate consumers.”
2. The submission of the appellants is that the lower authorities were in error in looking for evidence as to whether duty element had been passed on “to the ultimate consumer.” It is being contented that the only relevant fact is whether the manufacturer who originally paid the duty had passed on the duty to his buyer and not whether, at any subsequent stage of trade, the duty liability had been passed on. With regard to the present case, the learned Counsel has pointed out that evidence has been produced to show that the appellant’s buyer was paying price and duty only on the basis of reduced prices and not at the prices at which invoices were originally raised at the time of clearance of the goods and payment of duty made. he also has taken us through the relevant invoices and statement made available by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. to show that payment made by Maruti Udyog Ltd. was at lower prices and duties and not at the originally invoiced amounts.
3. We have perused the records and have heard both sides. We are in agreement with the learned Counsel for the appellants that the question to be considered is whether the appellant/manufacturer, who paid the duty originally, had passed on the duty liability to his buyer and not whether original duty liability had been passed on to the ultimate consumer. In the present case evidence shows that the appellant had not passed on the full duty amount paid originally at the time of clearance of the goods. The amount of duty, which is not passed on, is rightly due as re-fund to the appellant. The decision to the contrary by the lower authorities is not sustainable. Appeals is allowed with consequential relief if any to the appellant.