9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the incidence of duty to the customers/consumer. The order dated 2nd June, 1994 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, records that repeated opportunities were granted to the petitioner to furnish proof to the effect that the burden/element of duty was not been passed to the customers/consumers, but no documents were produced to substantiate the case. On several dates the petitioner had not appeared inspite of opportunity granted. As noted above, the petitioner wanted to donate the amount to a Charitable/Welfare Trust. Accordingly, the claim of refund of Rs. 1,54,230 and Rs. 42,783 was rejected - Decided against the assessee - WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3936 OF 1994 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2011 - DIPAK MISRA, SANJIV KHANNA, J. Gajen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to implement the order of CEGAT dated 13th March, 1992 and direct refund of the amount claimed by the petitioner with interest @18% p.a. 3. We do not find that the CEGAT had issued any direction for payment of interest. This prayer was specifically rejected. In terms of the order dated 13th March, 1992, the petitioner is not entitled to interest. 4. The petitioner had filed another application before the CEGAT that the authorities were not granting consequential effect to the earlier order dated 13th March, 1992. The Tribunal in its order dated 20th April, 1993, reprimanded the authorities for not implementing the order passed and directions were given to comply with the order dated 13th March, 1992 by 30th May, 1993. The request for gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d challenge the said order before the appropriate forum or otherwise in accordance with law. 7. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said order dated 7th June, 1994 and the order dated 2nd May, 1994. As noticed above, the order dated 13th March, 1992, no specific order or direction for refund was made. The claim for interest was specifically rejected and direction was issued for refund, if any, would be paid. Use of the words 'if any' indicates that if payable as per law, refund should be made to the petitioner. Refund was to be paid in accordance with the provision of the Act, The petitioner could not produce relevant documents to show that they had not passed the incidence of duty to the customers/consumer. The order dated 2n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
