2008 (12) TMI 581

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. The Appellants have been denied the impugned refund on the ground that they have not furnished any documentary evidence to show that the incidence of extra duty, refund of which has been claimed, had not been passed on to the buyers. This is a second round of Appeal. Even now there are no documen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t charged any excise duty separately. Here again not charging excise duty separately does not demonstrate that they have not passed on the extra duty burden as a part of the auction price for the impugned goods auctioned by them. Hence the arguments advanced in respect of both kinds of goods does not help the case of the Appellants. As a result, the Appeal is dismissed as not substantiated. (Pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X