2009 (8) TMI 1017

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... und claim of Rs. 91,386/-. Refund was rejected on the ground that the appellants failed to establish that incidence of duty has not been passed to any other person. 2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the appellants cleared Biscuits Good Day Butter declaring MRP of Rs. 660/- instead of Rs. 600/- due to wrong feeding of data in computer while preparing inv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e prices from their wholesale dealers for the same product as discussed above it becomes impossible to arrive at the conclusion that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the customers in the instant case where duty has been undoubtedly paid on the higher side by mistake while feeding wrong MRP in the computer. 3. The main contention of the learned Advocate is that on earlier occasion .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bench the Learned Advocate submits that no appeal was filed by the Revenue against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals). I find that the department verified the wholesale price and the wholesale price were not effected by the quantum of central excise duty paid less or more at the time to removal of the goods. It is seen that payment of excess excise duty is purely a mistake due to wrong f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X