9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der]. In these two appeals which have been filed by the Revenue against the common Order-in-appeal the issue relates to the rejection of refund claims of the respondents. 2. The adjudicating authority allowed the refund claim of the amounts in question but directed that the same be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the respondents have failed to prove non-passing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was subsequently finalized on 26-9-2002. The refund of Rs. 8,18,421.28/- was found due to them from the department. The refund was allowed but amount had been ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund for having passed on incidence of duty to the ultimate buyers/consumers in terms of Section 12B of the Act by the adjudicating authority. But there being no tangible evidence to prove the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 44. Similar view has also been taken by the Tribunal in another case of CCE, Delhi v. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 186. The case of the respondents squarely stands covered by the ratio of law laid down in these cases. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld. 5. The appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
