JUDGMENT Challa Kodanda Ram, J. 1. The appellant in all these Central Excise Appeals is the A.P. Paper Mills Limited, Rajahmundry, represented by its Company Secretary. These appeals filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') arising from different orders of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench Bengaluru, are clubbed and heard together, as they raise following common substantial questions of law: a. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal of the appellant when the decision of the 1st appellate authority was passed based on the judgment of the Tribunal reported in M/s. Addison & Co. Ltd., vs. CCE, Madras 1997 (93) ELT 429, which has been subsequently reversed In favour of the assessee by the High Court of Madras in Addison and Co. v. Commissioner 2001 (129) E.L.T. 44 (Mad.). b. Whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the appeal of the appellant by relying on the decision rendered in the context of Section 11C of the Act ignoring a direct decision of the High Court of Madras on the interpretation of provision of Section 11B and 12B, which are involved in this appeal. c. Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal of the appellant ignoring a direct judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Addison & Co. Ltd., Madras vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras 1997 (91) ELT 532 (SC), wherein it was held that the manufacturer is entitled for refund of duty on account of the discounts allowed to the dealers subsequent to the time of removal of the goods. d. Whether the Tribunal was right in following the decision in which the relevant provisions have not been considered and decided in preference to a decision wherein the very same provisions have been considered and answered by a High Court? 2. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, it may be necessary to mention brief facts: Appellant is the manufacturer of paper. As a matter of general practice, as found by the Tribunal, appellant dispatches the paper from time to time raising composite invoices setting out the price amount payable, which is inclusive of excise duty. 2. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, it may be necessary to mention brief facts: Appellant is the manufacturer of paper. As a matter of general practice, as found by the Tribunal, appellant dispatches the paper from time to time raising composite invoices setting out the price amount payable, which is inclusive of excise duty. In the transactions involved, which were the subject matter of present appeals, appellant had sold goods to various dealers and collected the invoice amount, which is inclusive of excise duty as applicable at the relevant point of time. Late on, on account of market conditions, the dealers were offered quantitative discounts and other discounts and the invoices were revised accordingly. The scheme of offering discounts was informed to the department from time to time. At the time of clearing the goods from the factory premises, the appellant had paid the excise duty on the invoices amount. Later, when the invoices were revised, the excise duty component, which was collected from the dealers initially, was revised in terms of the revised invoice price, which was lower than the invoice amount, which was initially issued. The difference of amount in excise duty, which was collected, was given credit to the dealers, thereby the actual amount of excise duty collected from the dealers was corresponding to the revised invoices subsequently issued. These facts are not in dispute, as the same were found by the primary authority and also by the appellate authority. There is also no challenge to these findings of fact recorded by the authorities concerned even before the Tribunal and also before this court in the present appeals. 3. Applications were made by the appellant - company before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, seeking refund of the excess amount of the central excise duty paid, which has resulted on account of revision of the invoices consequent upon the appellant allowing the discounts to their dealers. The relevant applications were made under Section 11B of the Act. The refund applications were processed by the Assistant Commissioner and he, having found that the appellant had refunded the excise duty collected from the dealers initially, had allowed the refund applications and passed orders in favour of the appellant, holding that the appellant is entitled for refund of the excise duty. 4. The refund applications were processed by the Assistant Commissioner and he, having found that the appellant had refunded the excise duty collected from the dealers initially, had allowed the refund applications and passed orders in favour of the appellant, holding that the appellant is entitled for refund of the excise duty. 4. In C.E.A. No. 51 of 2004, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, who was the Primary Authority, had himself allowed the refund claims, which were reversed by the appellate authority -- Commissioner (Appeals) filed by the department. Whereas in the transactions in CEA. Nos. 9, 10 and 21 of 2005, the primary as well as appellate authorities and also the Tribunal had refused to grant the refund claims. As common questions of law and fact are involved in these; appeals, they are being disposed off by common order. 5. The authorities below, in the orders, which were confirmed by the Tribunal, which are impugned in the present appeals, though accepted that the appellant had passed on the excise amount of duty collected to their dealers, had refused the claim for refund on the ground that the appellant had failed to produce evidence to the effect that the burden of duty was not passed on to any other person (to the ultimate customer by the dealer). 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the orders of CESTAT in the case of M/s. Addison & Co. Ltd. vs CCE, Madras (supra). On further appeal, the CESTAT dismissed the appeals by passing a cryptic order, the operative portion of which reads as: 3. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the issue raised is as to whether subsequent issue of credit notes towards return of excess duty collected from the buyers would satisfy the requirement of duty amount having been not passed on. This issue remains settled by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd., vs. C.C.E. Jaipur - 1994 (71) ELT 989, appeal against which order was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (1994 (70) ELT A 182). We also find that this Tribunal has subsequently passed several orders following the above decision (Grasim Ind (Chemical Divn) vs. C.C.E. Bhopal - 2003 (153) ELT 694, S. Kumar's Ltd. vs. C.C.E. Indore - 2003 (153) ELT 217 etc.). We also find that this Tribunal has subsequently passed several orders following the above decision (Grasim Ind (Chemical Divn) vs. C.C.E. Bhopal - 2003 (153) ELT 694, S. Kumar's Ltd. vs. C.C.E. Indore - 2003 (153) ELT 217 etc.). In the legal position obtaining from these decisions, we find no merit in the present appeals of the assessee. They fail and are rejected. 7. Learned counsel Sri Vedula Srinivas would submit that at the first instance, the first appellate authority committed a grievous error in placing reliance on CESTAT's decision in M/s. Addison & Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras (supra). He would submit that the Madras High Court had reversed the order of the Tribunal in the said decision, which in fact was reported in Addison & Co. v. Commissioner (supra). Unfortunately, even the appellate Tribunal had failed to notice this crucial aspect, inasmuch as the very basis for the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the claim of the appellant was the Tribunal's decision in M/s. Addison & Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras (supra). He would further submit that the reasons given by the appellate Tribunal that the issue is squarely covered by the orders of the Tribunal in Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. v. Collector of C. Excise, Jaipur 1994 (71) E.L.T. 989, Grasim Ind. (Chemical Divn.) v. Commissioner of C. Ex. Bhopal 2003 (153) E.L.T. 694 (Tri. - LB) and S. Kumar's Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore 2003 (153) E.L.T. 217 (Tri. - Lb), is totally erroneous and on mis-appreciation of facts and law. He would submit that various decisions referred to by the Tribunal, are not at all relevant in the facts and, circumstances of the case. He would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Addison & Co. Ltd. Madras vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras (supra), had recognized the trade practice of allowing quantitative discounts and the aspect of adjustment of the excise duty in conformity with the discounts allowed. The learned counsel would distinguish the orders of the Tribunal in cases of Sangam Processors, Grasim Industries and S. Kumar's, as not applicable. 8. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar for the Department would support the orders of the Tribunal and would place heavy reliance on Grasim Ind. The learned counsel would distinguish the orders of the Tribunal in cases of Sangam Processors, Grasim Industries and S. Kumar's, as not applicable. 8. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar for the Department would support the orders of the Tribunal and would place heavy reliance on Grasim Ind. (Chemical Divn.) vs. C.C.E. Bhoopal (supra) and would submit that the Tribunal had taken note of the Madras High Court judgment in Addison & Co. v. Commissioner (supra) and further in the case of TVS Electronics Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chennai 2012 (286) E.L.T. 258, the Chennai Bench had distinguished the Madras High Court Judgment. He would also place reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal in Commissioner of C.Ex. Hyderabad vs. TFL Quinn India Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (294) E.L.T. 421 (Tri. - Bang.) and by placing reliance on this case, he would submit that for the purpose of decision of entitlement of refund, the onus lies on the manufacturer to establish, as a matter of fact, the amount of duty which is sought as refund, was not passed on to any other person. He would submit that in the cases on hand, the manufacturer had failed to establish that fact. By placing reliance on the finding of the first appellate authority that the manufacturer - appellant had failed in satisfying the condition as laid down in the proviso (d) of Section 11B(2), he would submit that such finding is unexceptionable. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and the material on record, at the outset, we are unable to accept the contention of the Standing Counsel for the Department with respect to the finding of fact that the appellant - company had failed to establish that the appellant had not refunded the excise duty component, which was claimed now as refund. This goes against the findings of fact as recorded by the authorities below. 10. It is well settled that while dealing with the matters arising under Section 35G of the Act, the High Court being the creature of the statute, is bound to accept the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. In this case, the orders of the primary and first appellate authorities have merged with the orders of the Tribunal and the Tribunal by itself did not disturb any of the findings of fact as recorded by the authorities below. In this case, the orders of the primary and first appellate authorities have merged with the orders of the Tribunal and the Tribunal by itself did not disturb any of the findings of fact as recorded by the authorities below. In that view of the matter, both the authorities, primary as well as the appellate, had categorically recorded that the appellant - company had in fact, had made over the excise duty component, which was collected originally on revision of the invoice price, in the process of allowing discounts. 11. We are also in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the case of Sangam Processor's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the cases on hand, inasmuch as, that case was dealing with the case of Section 11C of the Act, whereas the appropriate provision applicable to the present cases are the proviso (d) to sub section (2) of Section 11B of the Act. 12. It is not the case of the Department that the applications for refund were not made within the stipulated time. Likewise in the case of Grasim Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal 2011 (271) E.L.T. 164 (S.C.), in our considered opinion, no ratio was laid down by the Supreme Court and the observations made were in the context of the facts of that case and as such the same is also not applicable to the case on hand. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in paragraph No. 15 as under: So far as the issuance of the credit note is concerned, the same was issued only on 7-8-1991 although the duty was paid on 19-7-1989 and, therefore, the credit note was issued after two years of the payment of the duty and the clearance of the goods. In this connection, Section 12 of the Central Excise Act becomes relevant which indicates that the party who is liable to pay excise duty on any goods, has to file the sales invoice and other documents relating to assessment at the time of clearance of the goods itself. Therefore, when at the time of clearance no such document was filed and what is sought to be relied upon is a document issued after two years, the same raises a doubt and cannot be accepted as a reliable document. 13. Therefore, when at the time of clearance no such document was filed and what is sought to be relied upon is a document issued after two years, the same raises a doubt and cannot be accepted as a reliable document. 13. In so far as the order of the Larger Bench in Grasim Ind. (Chemical Divn.) v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bhopal (supra), the judgment of the Madras High Court was sought to be ignored merely stating that Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. v. CCE (supra) was affirmed by the Supreme Court, as SLP against the said order of the Tribunal was dismissed. Except making such statement, what were the distinctions and how the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court in Addison & Co. v. Commissioner (supra) was inapplicable, was not set out. In the circumstances, we are not able to approve the order of the Tribunal. 14. So far as the case in S. Kumar's case (supra), it never dealt with the issue of the nature, which was the subject matter of the present case. In the said case, the Tribunal was only dealing with the precedent value of the dismissal of S.L.P. by a non-speaking order. The same is evident from the reference of the Tribunal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala 2001 (129) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.). 15. As a matter of fact, a Division Bench of this Court in the appellant's own case, by judgment dated 20.8.2010 in C.E.A. Nos. 95 of 2010 and batch, dismissed the appeals of the department against the orders of the Tribunal granting refund of the excess amount of excise duty paid consequent to the grant of various discounts like cash discount, quantity surplus, freight rebate etc., to their customers. The period covered in those appeals was between May, 1996 to November, 1999. The entire judgment of the Division Bench is on the well settled principle of taking the value for the purpose of determining tax as the transaction value of the goods, as reflected in the invoice price at the time of delivery of goods to the buyer. 16. In our considered opinion, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Addision & Co. v. Commissioner (supra). 17. 16. In our considered opinion, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Addision & Co. v. Commissioner (supra). 17. In the light of the discussion above, all the appeals are allowed answering the questions referred in (a) to (d) in paragraph No. 1 of the order in the negative i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs. 18. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stands closed.