9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)].- This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 51/2003 dated 21-7-2003, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: - The Respondents filed a refund claim for Rs. 7,32,362/- paid by M/s. Shakti Met-dor Ltd. on pre-f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the application of the respondents for refund in accordance with the amended provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. 3. Revenue is aggrieved over the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the following grounds :- (i) The respondents supplied pre-fabricated telephone booth to booth operators. They failed to produce the cost of telephone booth in the invoice before the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Ltd. who paid the excise duty @ 8% and collected the same from the respondents. The respondents have stated before the adjudicating authority that they have not passed on the incidence of duty towards the telephone booth operators, while claiming the refund of duty. The refund is on account of the fact that the pre-fabricated telephone booths are fully exempted from excise duty vide Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince the pre-fabricated telephone booths are exempted from excise duty and the duty erroneously paid by the manufacturer has been borne by the respondents, the Original authority should examine the documents to see whether the duty burden has been passed on by the respondents to any other person. The respondent has stated that the telephone booth remains as their own property. Prima facie, the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
