9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that the duty has been wrongly collected from them on the forged products under Tariff Item No.68 instead of Tariff Item No.26 AA(ia), which was correct classification of those goods. The respondent has contended that the goods were cleared on payment of duty from their factory @ 8% Adv under protest during the period 26.10.1979 to 19.08.1982. The duty paid by the respondent was accepted by the then Asstt. Collector of Central Excise but on appeal before the Collector (Appeals), it was held that the respondent is not required to pay the duty. Thereafter, the respondent filed refund claim of the duty paid under protest. The adjudicating authority sanctioned refund claim but held that the respondent has failed to pass bar of unjust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He further submits that the debit notes issued by the consignee is sufficient to show that the burden of duty has not been passed on to the consignee. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Belgaum Vs. Jineshwar Malleable & Alloys reported in 2012 (281) ELT 43 (Karnataka). He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACME Diet Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2009 (241) ELT 257 (Tribunal-Ahmd.) and in the case of Om Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2008 (232) ELT 309 (Tribunal-Chennai). 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. In this case, the fact of the case are as under:- 7. The appellants paid duty under protest and bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the part of the respondent to establish the duty incident has not been passed over to the customers, the authorities below erred in dropping the proceedings. Being so, the order passed by the authority below are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside with consequential relief. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order along with the order of the Adjudicating Authority is set aside with consequential relief." 9. We also find that the ld. Counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision in the case of Jineshwar Malleable & Alloys (supra). The facts of that case are not applicable to the facts of this case as in that case, the observation of the Honble High Court that the consignee has reversed the amount of cenva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
