9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs or not. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tyres, tubes and flaps etc. which were cleared by them on payment of duty. They were selling the tyres to M/s. Goodyear India Limited and M/s. CEAT Limited besides supplying to various original equipment manufacturers like Maurti Udyog Limited, Hindustan Motors Limited etc. Show cause notice was issued to them stating that M/s. Goodyear India Limited and M/s. CEAT Limited were related persons within the meaning of Sec. 4(4)(c)of the Central Excise Act as it stood prior to 1-7-2000 and therefore duty was required to be paid at the price at which M/s. Goodyear India Limited and M/s. CEAT Limited had resold these goods to their wholesale buyer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) in his de novo order. On the basis of this report the refund was sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner. The revenue, however, filed an appeal on the same before the Commissioner (Appeals) contending that the appellants have not established from documentary evidence, such as final price list of M/s. Goodyear India Limited to their depots, dealers, retailers and pricelist/invoice issued by such depots, dealers and retailers to ultimate customers to show that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the ultimate customers. Cost Accountant certificate by itself cannot be treated as evidence in this case and referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Maharashtra Cylinders Ltd. - 2003 (157) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cidence of duty has not been passed on and even the revenue s own Assistant Director (Cost) has certified that the incidence of duty has not been passed on. As the Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed the evidence produced by them and has not given any reasons as to how that evidence was not considered sufficient to establish that the incidence of duty has not been passed on, he has incorrectly remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner which matter should have been decided by him alone after considering evidence produced by them. When the Assistant Director (Cost) himself has verified that incidence of duty has not been passed on and they have intimated the department while paying duty under protest that the same shall not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
