9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver to the customers, the authorities below erred in dropping the proceedings. - Decided against the assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een received in terms of the amount disclosed in the invoices that the buyers issued debit notes in relation to the duty element. 4. The Tribunal in Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. case while dealing the similar issue had held thus :- "4. The submissions made by both the parties, herein, have been carefully, considered. In all these appeals, the question to be determined is whether the appellants can be said to be eligible for refund of the duty claimed by them in terms of Section 11C of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, which reads as under : * * * * * Sub-sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n his second order during de novo proceedings and that thereby they have fulfilled the condition in Section 11C(2). It is not possible to accept the contention because a plain reading of Section 11C(2) would show what is required thereunder is that the person claiming refund should apply within six months of the issue of 11C Notification with satisfactory proof to show that duty incidence has not been passed on to 'any other person'. Such is not the case here because in these cases the appellants have admittedly passed on the incidence at the time of clearance of the goods on payment of duty and had filed the refund claims under Sec. 11B in 1986 and at much later stage, apparently, after the insertion and coming into force of sub-section (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o not amount to discharging the burden which is required to be discharged by the assessee, to come out of the principle of unjust enrichment applicable in such cases, merely because the buyers of the respondent had issued the debit notes and had made reference to such debit notes in their ledger books that itself cannot be sufficient to say that the respondent had discharged their burden in that regard. The appellants, therefore, are justified in contending that consequent on the failure on the part of the respondent to establish the duty incident has not been passed over to the customers, the authorities below erred in dropping the proceedings. Being so, the order passed by the authority below are not sustainable and are liable to be set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
