9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER These appeals are directed against the common order dated 18 January 2007 of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (the Tribunal). Since the order of the Tribunal is common in the two appeals, filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise against the same respondent assessee, we are considering both these appeals together. 2. The revenue has proposed the following co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o clearance of goods. (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CESTAT is justified in rejecting the appeal of the Revenue in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of M/s. Sahakari Khand Udyog Ltd. 2005 (181) ELT 328 (SC); (d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CESTAT is justified in rejecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, it was held that unjust enrichment will not be applicable and directed refund. 6. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal on a finding of fact that amounts of differential duty were paid subsequent to the clearance of the excisable goods on insistence of the Anti Evasion and thus, the burden of duty was not passed on to the customer. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the excisable goods. Moreover, this payment of duty was on insistence of Anti Evasion Branch of the Central Excise Department. Thus, it was held that the burden of duty was not passed on to its customers. 9. In view of the above concurrent findings of fact, in our view, no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal. 10. Accordingly appeals are summarily dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
