9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sifiable under Chapter sub-heading No. 2621.00 to schedule 2 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and duty was payable on the same. Thereafter, show-cause notices were issued, orders were passed and the matter came to be finally decided by the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Mumbai dated 25-1-2002 holding that cinders is not excisable. In the meanwhile, the assessee had started paying duty on cinders under protest from 1998 and onwards. After the matter was finally decided, the appellants filed a refund claim for Rs. 24,43,877/- on 26-6-2002 being the duty paid under protest on clearances of cinders during the period from May, 1998 to January, 2002 comprising the details as under : - (i) Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 4, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On one hand, he sanctioned the refund of Rs. 91,234/- paid in 1999 under TR-6 Challan and refused to consider sanction of refund of the balance amount on the ground that the assessee had collected the amount from the customers. He also produced sample invoices. He submitted that the lower authorities have taken the view that upto September, 2001, assessee was clearing cinders to various parties under Central Excise invoices paying duty under protest. Stamp to this effect was affixed by them from May, 1998 onwards and the excise element has been separately shown and collected. With effect from 16-9-2001, the assessee started to affix a new rubber stamp on the invoices to the effect that the invoice value does not include Excise duty amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t they have not charged the Excise duty and further submitted that price of cinders would not have remained same from 1998 onwards till 2002. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants have collected Excise duty subsequent to 16-9-2001. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The first contention put forth was that having sanctioned the amount paid under TR-6 Challan, the decision to credit the balance amount to Consumer Welfare Fund is not logical and contradictory. We do not find this to be correct. In the case of amount which has been credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, it has been done so because the assessee was found to be charging Excise duty to the customers though it was indicated that the paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
