2006 (3) TMI 353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. The Revenue has filed this appeal against Order in Appeal No. 5/2004 dated 13-1-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Guntur. 2. The respondents, manufacturers of agricultural pesticides were availing the benefit of SSI Notification No. 9/2000. The above said Notification was amended on 1-9-2000 and duty a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sic facts that assessee s had sold the goods on CUM duty price which included duty. 3. Shri K. S. Bhatt, SDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue and Shri C. Sarabheswara Rao, Consultant appeared for the Respondent. 4. The learned SDR relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal and urged the point that the fact that the price remained the same is not a conclusive evidence to non-passing of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . In these circumstances, the correct presumption of the Revenue should be that the correct rate of duty payable is passed on to the buyer and not that the higher duty wrongly paid had been passed on. To put it differently, even when the respondent paid duty to the exchequer at the rate of 12.8%, what has been passed on to the buyer is only at 9.6%. Hence, only the lower rate of duty has been pass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X