9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed refund claim against two Bills of Entry No. 977239 dated 26.9.2005 and 934439 dated 8.8.2005. A dispute regarding the value of the goods was raised in respect of said Bills of Entry was decided after a long litigation. The appellants claimed consequential refund of the duty paid. The CESTAT in Appeal No. C/216/11 vide Order No. A/280/2012/SMB/C-IV dated 27.9.2012 has directed the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtified that the appellant has not passed on the burden of additional duty to the customers. The Assistant Commissioner however rejected the claim of refund on the grounds that evidence of non-availment of CENVAT Credit has not been submitted and the refund claim filed by the importer is incomplete. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who also upheld the Order-in-O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in annexure-3 they have clearly shown the customs duty paid of Rs. 1,94,352/- as advance recoverable in cash or kind. On that basis, he argued that they have not passed on the burden of duty to the customers. 3. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. He further argued that no evidence of non-availment of CENVAT Credit has been given. He further argued that there is no mention of submission of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt shows that the appellant has indeed passed on the burden of duty to the buyers. The appellant importer is also a registered dealer, registered with Central Excise. The invoice being issued by him are under the Central Excise Rules, the invoice clearly show the amount of duty is being passed on. The invoices are required to show in the format prescribed under the law in respect of each consignme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
