2004 (4) TMI 442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. The lower authorities have sanctioned the refund of excess duty amounting to Rs. 2,12,32,689/- but have credited the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellants argues that :- (i) The claimed refund has arisen out of finalization of provisional assessment of duty and hence the same is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed for the fertilizer manufactured and sold by the appellants using the impugned imported materials plus the subsidy received by the appellants representing the difference between the retention price less the selling price was much less than the cost of production of the fertilizer calculated taking into account the lower duty of 12 per cent on the imported material. Therefore, it is his contentio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. 3. Considering the arguments from both sides and perusal of case records and the cited case law, we are of the view that subject to verification of the cost calculation, the appellants have made out a clear case that they have not passed on the duty burden to the buyers nor have they received a subsidy to compensate for the extra duty burden of 3 per cent since the selling price plus the subs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X