9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacture of final products and included in the price of the final product would be deemed to have been passed on to the customers. (ii) Whether sub-section (2)(d) of proviso to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, is applicable only to the duty of excise paid on final products or it covers the duty paid on the goods captively consumed also. (iii) Whether duty collected under one sub-heading held to be incorrect can be adjusted towards the amount under the adjudged correct heading. (iv) Whether duty element paid even though arguably collected without the authority of law from Modvat account would be liable to be refunded in cash." 2.&em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t authority of law, no duty was in fact payable. It was also submitted that it was not permissible to adjust the amount already paid as duty payable on these items under some other heading. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Tribunal in support of their point. The appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that if the manufacturers were not entitled to any refund as the duty had been paid by them out of Modvat credit which was not admissible, the buyers of goods will also not be entitled to such refund since they had derived their authority from manufacturers. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was rejected. Against this order, the assessee filed the appeal before this Tribunal. This Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards the amount under the adjudged correct heading and (2) Whether the duty element paid even though arguably collected without the authority of law from Modvat account would be liable to be refunded in cash." He therefore prays that since these two points of law arise out of the Tribunal's order, therefore reference may be made to the High Court of Allahabad. 5. No one appeared for the respondents. In para 8, the Tribunal has held that "In the facts of the present case it is not in dispute that the manufacturers of plastic components had paid duty applicable to sub-heading 8523.12 under protest and subsequently the department had informed the manufacturer that the said items were not classifiable under Heading 85.23. We, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
