9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): Both the appeals one filed by the Revenue and the other by the appellant are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical. The appellant had filed refund of duty paid during 30.11.95 to 31.03.2002. Refund of Rs. 68,16,546/- for the period from 15.04.96 to 31.03.2002 has been rejected on merits as also on unjust enrichment. 2. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty not paid during 01.03.94 to 07.11.95. The demand was dropped by the Commissioner vide his OIO No. 14-15/02 dt. 03.09.2002 on the grounds that process undertaken by the appellant was exempted. against which, revenue filed appeal which was rejected by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 627/04 dt. 01.09.2004. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court vide their order dt. 30.09.2008 has further rejected appeal f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty paid by the appellant was being recovered from their customers. As such, we are of the view that appellant has not been able to discharge the onus placed upon it for proving that excise duty has not been recovered from their customers, though learned advocate has drawn our attention to a letter written to their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities indicating that they would not be collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
