2014 (7) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as not formed part of cost of production and is receivable from the department - Revenue contends that appellant has failed to show that the excess duty paid has not formed part of the cost of production - Held that:- appellant has produced a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant certifying that the excess duty paid by them did not form part of the cost of production. It is further proved .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se are that the appellant imported one capital goods and paid the duty at the time of clearance of the goods. As the appellant was not satisfied with the levy of duty at the time of importation they filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it was held that the appellant has paid excess duty, therefore they were entitled for refund of duty of ₹ 90,47,661/-. The appellant sou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Chartered Accountant clearly mentioned that the excess duty paid by them does not form part of the cost of production as pre-importation and post importation the prices are same and the appellant has also shown the excess duty paid by them as receivable from the department. In these circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not required to pass the impugned order, therefore same has to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X