2015 (10) TMI 1224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... I 116 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. He also relied Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of SRF Ltd. Vs CC Chennai [2005 (5) TMI 91 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. The appellant failed to produce any evidence that the duty incidence is not passed on to the customers. I find that the burden of proof is on the appellant to establish unjust enrichment particularly when the amount is shown in the books of a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sel informed the Bench that they had no instructions from the client and final notice was issued and posted the matter today. But none appeared nor any letter filed from the counsel or appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is taken up on merits based on the documents available on record. 2. The issue relates to sanction of refund of ₹ 15,39,603/- on the duty paid on the intermediate product .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the OIO and in OIA it is established that appellant had passed on the duty incidence to their customers. 4. I have examined the records and I find that the LAA in the impugned order dealt the issue in detail and also relied on the apex court's judgment in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. Vs CCE 2005 (181) ELT 328 (SC). He also relied Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X