9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of yarn and fabrics falling under Chapter Heading 55 of the CETA, 1985. They were clearing yarn from their spinning division for use in the manufacture of grey fabrics in the weaving division. Since the yarn so cleared for captive consumption did not have comparable value, the appellants applied for provisional assessment and paid duty on provisional basis. The Assistant Commissioner finalised assessments relating to the period July, 2000 to March 2001, April, 2001 to March, 2002 and April, 2002 to March 2003 and held that there were excess payments of Rs. 21,86,840/-, Rs. 22,26,216/- and Rs. 12,51,032/- respectively. Consequent to finalisation, the appellants preferred refund c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Rules, 1944 and later under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the cost sheets prepared by the company in respect of yarn and fabrics did not include the excise duty component and therefore, erred in holding that they have passed on the duty burden. Further, the grey fabrics was cleared without payment of duty and duty paid on the yarn was not availed as credit by the weaving division. The value of grey fabrics declared by the weaving division while clearing to the independent textile processor also did not include the duty paid on yarn. 5. The learned Jt. CDR reiterated the findings and reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). He added that the appellants have failed to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while discharging duty on processed fabrics with effect from 1-3-2001. Therefore, the view taken by the authorities below that deemed credit taken by independent processors related to duty paid on yarn also and therefore, the excess duty paid is deemed to have been passed on to the job worker cannot be faulted in the absence of evidence to the contrary produced by the appellants. It is not disputed that during the relevant period, the refund arising out of finalisation of provisional assessment is also subject to provisions of unjust enrichment and that the burden to prove that they have not passed on the duty incidence is on the claimant. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the order of the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
