9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal is against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy under which the learned appellate authority has rejected the appellant s claim for payment in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on ground of unjust enrichment. 2.Shri G. Ramesh, the learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the appellant before the learned lower appellate a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant had not maintained any records in regard to the transaction and that the amounts received were by cash and no records of the same had been maintained by the appellants. In this connection he was asked as to how this plea can be accepted when the burden is cast on the appellants to establish that incidence of duty had not been passed on to the customers, the learned Counsel had no satisfa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 1-3-1995, the learned Advocate did not file full set of documents and he was given an opportunity to produce the documentary evidence and thereafter the matter was adjourned to this day for hearing. Today also he has produced only copies of affidavits from the customers to the effect that they had not paid any amount as duty to the appellants. No evidence by way of accounts maintained either by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained, either by the customers or by the appellants. As mentioned earlier it is for the appellants to establish with credible evidence that incidence of duty had not been passed on to the customers. In the present case I find that no acceptable evidence has been produced in support of the plea of the appellants. In view of this, the plea of the appellants has to be rejected and consequently, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
