2015 (10) TMI 1809

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... idence to establish that the incidence of duty had not been passed on by them to their customers/buyers. The Commissioner (appeal) had given detailed findings on his issue. In the grounds of appeal, it is contended by the appellant that the refund can be sanctioned to Govt of Gujarat Dept, on a simple indemnity as provided in the Treasury Rules. It is further contended that the Govt of Gujarat can .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the processing of Wood Timber would not amount to manufacture The Adjudicating Authority has sanctioned the refund claim of ₹ 1,45,383 and the balance amount of ₹ 16,53,919/- was directed to be credited to the Fund under Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944. Commissioner (Appeal) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 3. It is seen from the impugned order that the balance am .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... burden of duty paid under protest was not passed on the consumer despite opportunities granted, it alone is sufficient to disentitle for claiming the refund. There is no provision in the Central Excise law that the state government authorities would be are outside of the principles of unjust enrichment. 5. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X