9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posited as duty under protest. The said amount was shown as ‘loans and advances’ in the balance sheet. The AD (Cost) further indicated that the costing of some varieties also shows that the cost did not include 15%. In his further report dated 23-2-2006 he stated that the respondent have not passed on incidence of said duty to their customer. We also notice that in this case the respondent is a jo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of fabrics of woollen, cotton and man made blended fabrics liable to Central Excise duty. They have filed two refund claims for a total amount of ₹ 77,53,152/- on the ground that they have paid excess Central Excise duty under protest earlier as per directions of the Department. The claims were rejected by the original authority. On appeal, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce to any other person. The buyers of goods belong to same group/family and as such documentations submitted are not free from doubt. The duty payment on their own, only in respect of the another family unit, is not acceptable as accounting is doubtful. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order is legally correct and there is no reason to modify the same. 4. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely in the Excise invoice. Further, the respondent had also submitted a certificate of Chartered Accountants to state that they (respondents) had not recovered excise duty on additional 15% cost of grey fabrics from the customers. 5. Having considered all the above factual position, we find that there is no legal basis to interfere with the impugned order. No valid ground has been made out in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
