9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goda Raghuram and Ashutosh Mohunta, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Gopalakrishna Gokhaley, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Gandra Mohan Rao, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : Goda Raghuram, J.]. - This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [ the Act for brevity], is preferred against the Final Order No. 77 of 2011 Miscellaneous Order No. 46 of 2011 dated 7-2-2011 passed in Appeal No. E/2203/10 E/CO/146/10 on the file of the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, FKCCI-WTC Building, K.G. Road, Bangalore [2011 (274) E.L.T. 113 (Tribunal)]. 2. The respondent-manufacturers of betel nut powder (a product known as supari) were paying duty, classifying the product u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a review petition filed by the Revenue before the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 2-4-2008, the assessee filed a refund claim on 7-5-2008 for Rs. 32,03,97,583/- comprising the amounts paid through cash (PLA) and another amount paid through credit account. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised refund claim on 12-5-2008 for Rs. 32,29,59,831/-. 4. The Revenue issued show cause notice dated 5-8-2008 proposing to reject the refund claim and eventually, the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Guntur, vide order dated 29-4-2010 held that the assessees were eligible for the refund under the provisions of Section 11B of the Act but were not entitled for refund since it was not proved that the assessee had passed on the duty burden to the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CESTAT have upheld the order of refund on the ground that there is no variation in the price of the product both before and after the period the duty was paid by the assessee; and the respondent-assessee had produced a detailed Chartered Accountant s Certificate before adjudicating the authority; and in view of the fact that the Revenue failed to marshal any countervailing evidence to counteract the material produced by the assessee to disclose the passing of the duty liability to the consumer, the respondent-assessee is liable for refund. 8. It is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant herein that in case of material/evidence on record to establish the passing on of the burden of duty to the consumer, the assessee i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
