2005 (6) TMI 496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Bohra, Member (J)]. Heard Shri K.K. Sanyal, JDR and Shri Abhijeet Biswas, Advocate for Respondent. Mr. Sanyal submits that nowhere in the Central Excise Rules, the Appellant is authorized to take credit on such excess payment made by him and detected before submission of the return. Therefore, he submits that the contention of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not appear to be correct. He, f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s that the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed error in allowing the refund. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed. 2. Learned Advocate supports the impugned order. He submits that the Credit Note has been issued and no incident of duty has been passed on to the buyer. Therefore, the Commissioner of Appeals has rightly allowed the appeal. He relies on the following decision : (i) Shyam Te .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Appellant is not authorized to take the credit on excess payment wrongly made by him and detected before submission of the return. There is nothing on record to ensure that the duty incident by that time was not passed on to the ultimate consumer as it is evident from the relevant invoices and the credit note issued subsequently by the appellant. The bar of u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X