9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ultimate consumers – in view of another case, held that assessee is not required to establish that the incidence of duty is not passed on to the ultimate buyers – order of commissioner of sanctioning refund is based on evidences so it is justified - E/468/2004 - 1819/2004 - Dated:- 17-11-2004 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, SDR, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contends that the matter has been taken up before the Apex Court by a Special Leave Petition No. 12391 of 2002 against the Madras High Court judgment and, therefore, this matter is required to be decided in Revenue's favour as the assessee has not discharged the burden of showing that the incidence of duty has not been passed to the ultimate consumer. We have heard the learned SDR Shri L. Narasi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord and pointed out that the Revenue's only grievance is that the assessee is required to establish about the passing of the incidence of duty to the ultimate consumers, which is not the spirit of the Section 11B read with Section 12B of the C.E. Act, 1944. He pointed out that the Madras High Court has clearly concluded in the case of Addison Co. V. CCE (cited supra) that the assessee is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en passed on to the consumer had been negatived by the Madras High Court in the case of Addison Co. and the same view was also expressed by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Delhi v. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 186 (Tri.-Del.). Therefore, we do not find any merit in this, appeal and the same is rejected. (Pronounced in open Court on 17-11-2004) - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
