9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the auditor by certificate dated 27.4.2004 had certified that no part of duty paid by the appellant has been reimbursed by the customer. The genuinety and authenticity of the certificate was not doubted by both the authorities below. There is no material available on record to discard the Chartered Accountant certificate. Hence, in my considered view, there is no need to furnish the cost of material and pricing of the contract. It will be necessary in the case, when the Auditor s certificate is not accepted as incomplete or any other reason. Nuclear Power Corporation Limited, a Government of India Enterprise had confirmed that they have not reimbursed any Excise Duty to the appellant against the excise duty paid on the invoices of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was decided by the Tribunal vide order No. 190/2002-03 dated 28.11.2002, wherein it has been held that process undertaken by M/s. PSL does not amount to manufacture. By letter dated 12.09.2003, M/s. PSL informed that the appellant had paid the Central Excise duty and therefore, they are eligible to get the refund of duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, the appellant filed refund claim for ₹ 20,45,807/-. 3. A show cause notice was issued proposing to reject the refund claim. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant have not furnished any documentary evidence that the incidence of duty was not passed to other person. By the impugned order, the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 2004 (166) ELT 3 (SC). 6. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the manufacturer paid the duty under protest. They have requested the appellant to claim the refund as the duty element was borne by the appellant. The refund claim was rejected on the ground that the appellant had not furnished sufficient evidence that the incidence of duty was not passed on to their customers. It is seen from the records that the appellant produced Chartered Accountant certificate dated 27.4.2004, certifying that the appellant paid a sum of ₹ 20,45,807/- by way of excise duty on Fusion Bonded Epoxy Coating of steel bars against the excise invoices raised by M/s. PSL Corrosion Control Services Limited and confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount to the applicant. In present case, the appellant discharged the burden by producing certificate dated 10.12.2003 from their customer namely, Nuclear Power Corporation Limited. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the case, the relevant portion of the said certificate is reproduced below:- This is to certify that the contract for the Construction of Turbine Buildings, CCW Tunnels, External RCC Trenches and Tunnels, Chlorination Plant, DM Plant, Pump House, excluding CCW Pump house, Discharge Channels, Fresh/ Fire water reservoir and Misc. Structures at Tarapur Atomic Power Project -3 4 (Package-III Work) was awarded to M/s. AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED., Afcons House, 16, Shah Industrial Extate, Veera Desai Road, Azad Nagar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
