9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices from their Ludhiana and Delhi depots in comparison to the prices declared and at which the duty was paid at the time of clearance from the factory on stock transfer basis to the respective place of removal. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Bhiwadi has examined these claims and passed a speaking order dated 23-3-2000. He in his order has observed that the contention of the party that the goods were sold at lower prices stand substantiated and they are entitled for refund of duty on merits. He has further observed that in terms of the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, every application for refund shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence to establish that the amount of duty of exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tomer nor does it flow there from that the manufacturer is absorbing the duty himself. It is also observed that the assessee has not been able to produce any evidence other than the sale invoices to support their argument that the burden of duty excess paid by them at the time of removal of goods from the factory, has been borne by them or for that matter has not been passed on to the buyer of goods. Accordingly, he has rejected the refund claims on the ground that unjust enrichment in terms of Section 11B. 2. The party filed an appeal but the same is rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur vide his Order dated 7-12-2000. 3. This is an appeal against the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Today when the matter is called, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty element. It is difficult to accept that the appellants has not passed on incident of duty to customers. I find that the appellants have failed in satisfying the clause of unjust enrichment. In view of the above, the refund claim has rightly been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, I uphold the impugned order. 5. We fully agree with the above findings as also those arrived at in the order of the original authority. The appellants have not indicated the duty element separately in their invoices which is mandatory under Section 12A. The appellants have therefore failed to rebut the statutory presumption held against them under Section 12B. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly rejected. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
