9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m for refund of duty of Rs. 2,72,379/-. The appellants had procured certain textile made-ups (Heading 63.02 of the CETA Schedule) from the manufacturers of the said goods under cover of four invoices dated 9-10-2003, 17-10-2003, 22-10-2003 and 3-12-2003 on payment of cum-duty price. The goods were allegedly exported by them. They filed a refund claim dated 21-2-2004 for the aforesaid amount under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further opportunity. On the other hand, the party took the weird stand that, as excise duty was paid on monthly basis through TR 6 Challan, excise invoices were no longer duty-paying documents. In the circumstances, the original authority recorded a finding that the appellants had not produced the original and duplicate copies of manufacturers invoices. It was also found that the invoices issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusive evidence of payment of duty of excise on the subject goods. Further, the pre-dated invoices produced by the appellants and alleged to have been used for export of the goods can hardly be accepted as evidence of the incidence of duty on the goods having not passed on to the foreign buyer inasmuch as the goods covered by the pre-dated invoices of the exporter cannot be held to be the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
