9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), where the refund claim filed by the appellants was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturing "Sunfill" a fruit flavoured drink m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proved on record that burden of duty has not been passed on to their customers. The appellants produced copy of one sample invoice where the excise duty was paid under protest. The appellants relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut reported in [2004 (169) E.L.T. 201 (Tribunal-Delhi)], in the case of Uniproducts (India) Ltd. v. CCE [20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been passed on to the customers. 5. We find that, in this case, the appellants were manufacturing the goods in question on behalf of M/s. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. and they have also complied with the procedural formalities under Central Excise Act & Rules as per provisions of Notification No. 27/92-C.E. (N.T.). The appellants paid duty on behalf of M/s. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. even the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that after taking into consideration the facts of that case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that burden of duty has not been passed on to the customers. Similar is the case in case of Honda Siel Power Products and in case of Panyam Cements & Minerals Ltd. relied upon by the appellants, in which matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh in view of the evidences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
