9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 4-12-2006 - [Order]. - This appeal arises from OIA No. 62/2004-CE dated 19-3-2004. The appellants claimed refund for the excess duty paid during Mach 2003 by mistake. The customer did not pay the higher duty which had been discharged by the assessee in their invoices. They claimed refund on the ground that they are not liable to pay the excess duty. This is a case where there was no iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em. It is submitted that this position has been clarified in subsequent judgments in the light of the Larger Bench judgment, by this Bench in the case of CCE (Appeals), Tirupati v. Audithiya Minerals Ltd. - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 868 (Tri.-Bang.); CCE, Guntur v. Triveni Glass Ltd. - Final Order No. 1412/2005 dated 16-8-2005 Reference is made to Delhi Bench's order in SPBL Limited v. CCE, Jaipur- 2006 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not covered by the judgment of S. Kumar's case where a simple credit note had been issued and it had not been established there that the consumer had not borne the duty. In all the above cited cases, S. Kumar's case has been distinguished on facts. The assessee has proved that he has borne the higher duty which was paid by mistake. Respectfully following the ratio of the above noted judgments, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
