2005 (11) TMI 340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal is by the Department. There is no representation for the respondents despite notice nor any request of theirs for adjournment. 2. During the period from April, 2001 to March, 2002, the respondents had included the element of turnover tax in the assessable value of their product cleared for home consumption and had accordingly paid duty. Subsequently, on 26-8-02, they filed refund clai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eal of the Revenue, the main ground raised by the appellant is that the Tribunal's decision in CCE v. Kothati Products reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. 647 (T) relied on by the lower appellate authority is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is also contended that the assessee had collected duty on the element of turnover tax, which shows, the burden has clearly been passed on. 4. Lear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X