9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund application, the Original Authority has sanctioned the refund in favor of the appellant. The findings of the Original Authority proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the excess central excise by the appellant incorrectly has been entirely borne by it and has not been transferred to the buyer or any other person - denial of the refund benefit and transferring the amount to the consumer welfa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Surana. However, the said buyer had settled the price of goods as per the purchase orders dated 05.10.2011 and 05.11.2011 placed by it on the appellant. For the differential amount of duty, the said buyer has issued the debit note to the appellant. The refund application filed by the appellant was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 15.01.2013. feeling aggrieved with the said or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olkata vs Oriental Textiles Processing Co. Pvt. Ltd reported in 2012 (276) ELT 257 (Tri. Del). 4. Opposing to the submissions of the appellant, I-d u DR appearing for the Revenue submits that onus to prove that the Central Excise duty incidence has not been the appellant, which has not rejection of refund claim on to the buyer squarely lies with satisfactorily discharged, and thus, rejection o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty. Further, Range officer has also submitted verification report vide hi letter dated 10.01.2013 regarding credit of ₹ 44,15,247/- in the account of M/s SC Surana (the buyer) by M/s JCO Gas Pvt. Ltd. which established that the claimant has made refund claim. M/s SC Surana has also certified that he is not having any Central Excise and Service Tax registration therefore question of passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
