2008 (7) TMI 778

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellants filed Bill of Entry No. 100909, dated 19-9-2002 for import of Circular Knitting Machine and paid excess duty of Rs. 1,27,411/-. The Appellants filed refund claim for the said duty, which was sanctioned by the Adjudicating Authority. Revenue filed appeal against the Adjudication Order before the Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned order, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ficate, which is not permissible in law. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Krishna International v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai - 2008 (225) E.L.T. 364 (Tribunal-Mumbai). He further submits that the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proof that the duty incidence has been passed on to any other person. 3. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the certificate dated 9-6-2008 certified that the excess duty paid was not included in the expenses. The said excess duty paid was debited to the imported machinery and after receipt of the refund from the customers, it was credited to imported machinery account as excess of refund duty amount was paid. On perusal of both the certificates, there is no indication that the said amount was shown in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X