9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any supplementary invoice for the Dabur Lal Tail cleared during the period September 2000 to February 2001, so, there can be no question of passing of duty on the buyer. Secondly no duty can be passed on to the same buyer for an earlier clearance of some different product, by clearance of some different product in the future time. Further the appellant have deposited the amounts by TR-6 Challans and debited the duty during pendency of their appeal before Honourable Supreme Court, by way of debit entry made in the PLA (Personal Ledger Account). Accordingly there is no question of unjust enrichment involved under the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, I direct the Adjudicating Authority to disburse the refund of ₹ 1,86,40 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh TR-6 challan's during the period March 2004 to March 2005. It is further admitted fact that the said payment were made on being pressurised by the revenue, pending appeal of the assessee before Honourable Supreme Court, wherein the issue of classification was pending. The Honourable Supreme Court decided the issue of classification in favour of the appellant assessee by its order dated 01/4/2005. 2. The brief facts are that both the appeals are arising for the same facts and Order-in-Original, hence the appeals are taken together for disposal. The appellants were inter alia, engaged in the manufacturer of several products like 'Dabur Anmol Coconut Oil,' 'Dabur Amla Hair Oil', 'Dabur Vatika Hair Oil', etc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s imposable on the appellants. 5. Pursuant to the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellants filed a refund claim dated 03.05.2005 along with all evidences for an amount of ₹ 1,96,65,263/- deposited during the pendency of the appeal. In the meanwhile, the appellant also approached the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad which vide its interim order dated 25.11.2005 directed the appellants to make a representation before the concerned adjudicating authority. This direction was duly complied with by the applicants whereby, it filed a detailed representation dated 30.11.2005 before the proper officer seeking refund claim of. duty deposited 'under protest',during pendency of appeal. 6. However, vide Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their buyers i.e. M/s Dabur India Limited by sale of their excisable other products and the same money has been utilized for payment of Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 1,86,40,263/-. In other words, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyer and the appellant has failed to produce any evidence, confirming the allegation of the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30.05.2008, the applicants preferred Appeal before this Tribunal, (vide Appeal No. E/1914/2008-EX[DB]). 9. As both the appeals are arising from the same facts and Order-in-Original, we take the appeals together for disposal. 10. Heard the Id. Counsel for the appellant who have urged that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise duty recoverable on Lal Tail. He further observed that he finds these pages neither certified nor Stamped by the Chartered Accountant where as all the pages relating to balance-sheet of any year submitted by the party/appellant are duly certified, as well Stamped by the Chartered Accountant. He further observed that in absence of certification by Chartered Accountant, the showing of outstanding-recoverable towards Excise duty seems to be by way of an Afterthought. Further observing as to passing of incidence of duty, that the duty is realised by way of selling Lal Dant Manjan. He observed that on examination of bank statement of the appellant, it is found that a total of ₹ 1,96,65,263/- deposited and refund claimed by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
