2000 (7) TMI 497

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. The appellants herein filed a refund claim for Rs. 42,07,977/- in respect of Central Excise duty paid during the period from 19-2-1996 to 29-6-1996 in respect of cold rolled steel strips made from hot rolled strips on the ground that as per the judgment in their own case reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 248 (S.C.), the activity of cold rolling out of dut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... relied upon an earlier order of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Patiala and rejected the refund claim; the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the stand that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of same assessee cited supra was not relevant in the context of the Tariff as it stood subsequent to 1-3-1986 and he also held that the refund could not be sanctioned because of the bar of u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lling from hot rolled strips amounts to manufacture. The burden cast upon the Revenue to show that manufacture has taken place has not been discharged. Hence we hold that the refund claim is admissible on merits; however, the appellants will have to satisfy the Assistant Commissioner to whom the matter is remanded that they have not passed on the burden of duty to their customers. Upon such satisf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X