9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal No. E/CO/415/2006 & E/1845/2006 - Final Order Nos. A/991-992/2007-WZB/C-IV/SMB - Dated:- 3-7-2007 - [Order per] - This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. CEx.XI/AKD/60/NSK/ APL/2006 dated 23-2-2006. 2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the refund of the excise duty paid by the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L/2004 dated 13-8-2004, against which Revenue has not preferred any appeal. The refund claim consequent to such order-in-appeal was filed by the Respondent and was rejected at the hands of adjudicating authority and on an appeal ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the said refund claim by setting aside the adjudication order. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appeal arrived at the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no sale to others. (iii) The mere fact that the service/supervision charge is more than the cost price is no indication that excise duty incidence has been passed on to the customers under ORC and like schemes. It is seen that the said charge is even more than the cost and excise duty element taken together. (iv) The question of passing on the burden of duty incidence arises only when there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m to the department along with the RT-12 returns". It can be noticed from above reproduced findings, that id. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly come to the conclusion that in the absence of any sale of the poles by the respondents, there cannot be any question of unjust enrichment, I find that the said order-in-appeal is well reasoned one and I am in agreement with it. 3. Accordingly, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
