9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. The applicant filed these applications in pursuance to the order dated 2-9-2003 passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1458/03 [2003 (157) E.L.T. 500 (S.C.)]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed the refund of differential duty and the refund was rejected by the adjudicating authority as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill be open to the appellant, however, to urge before the Tribunal that the recording that the appellant had not questioned the finding of fact by the appellant authorities and that evidence had been produced that the incidence of the higher levy had not been passed on to the customers was incorrect . 5. In pursuance to the above order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the applicant filed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (107) E.L.T. 246 which was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Panihati Rubber Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-II reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 742. The contention is that when the price of the goods remains same during the period, the manufacturer paid higher duty and the period where they are paying no duty, the manufacturer was taking the burden and not passing on to their customers. 6. We find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of CC v. Allied Photographies India Ltd. reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T. 3. Hon ble Supreme Court held that uniformity in price before and after the assessment does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that incidence of duty has not been on to the buyer as such uniformity may be due to various factors. Para 18 of the judgment is reproduced below : Before concluding, we may state that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find that as the Supreme Court was dealing the issue regarding unjust enrichment and the law laid down by the Supreme Court is in respect of the specific plea that in case price remains same, the burden of payment of duty has not been passed on to the buyer and this issue is decided in favour of the Revenue by the Supreme Court, therefore, we find no merit in this argument of the applicant. As t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
