SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are taken up for disposal by this common order, as the issues involved are the same. The appellant is a manufacturer of patent and proprietary medicines, who during the years 1990 -91 paid duty on the goods cleared from their factory to their Sales Depots after assessment under Rule 98 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The goods were thereafter, sold by them on cum -duty prices from the sales depot. The invoices issued by the sales depot to the Customers, down the line, did not contain any specific amount of the duty of excise paid provisionally or otherwise on the goods.

(2.) Upon finalisation of the assessments by the proper officer, the appellants became entitled to claim refund of the duty paid in excess on provisional basis. Accordingly, they filed refund claims for the years 1990 -1991.

(3.) The appellants were served Show Cause Notices seeking only, as to why the refund amounts so claimed should not be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund as per the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the grounds: