9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. The instant appeals were filed by the Revenue against the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order sanctioning refunds and the appeals filed by the Department were rejected. 2. In this case, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of snuff. They filed four refund claims on the ground that the Government of Maharashtra imposed Luxury T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als). 3. The learned DR submits that as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, it is clear that the assessee would be entitled for the grant of refund only if he is able to show that he is not passing on the duty burden to any other person, which is claimed as refund. In this connection, the learned DR drew the attention of the Bench on the ground no. 6 of the Revenue s appeals as under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price adopted by the Assessee is subject to revision of duty rate and such enhanced rate is to be borne by the customer by way of further enhancing the price agreed upon, by the element of enhanced duty amount and such enhanced rate is not to be borne by the Assessee. As such the Assessee is not entitled for the aforesaid refund claimed. 4. The learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the refund claims were sent to the Range Superintendent of the respondents for verification purposes and since no anomaly as regards the quantum of the refund was observed, the contention raised in the Department s appeals, at this stage, is not maintainable. 5. After considering the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the record, I find force ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
