9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es refunded recovered duty to the accounts of buyers and therefore, established that duty incidence which was passed on to the buyers was withdrawn and recovered by the appellant - appellant is entitled for refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/56910/2013-EX[SM] - A/71169/2016-SM[BR] - Dated:- 11-11-2016 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri S.C. Kamra Shri Kartikeya Narain, Advocates for the Appellant (s) Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commr. (A.R.) for the Department (s) Per Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar: This appeal is filed by the appellant, M/s Ginni Filaments Ltd. against Order-in-Appeal No.01-CE/LKO/2013 dated 07.01.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Lucknow. 2. The brief fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with TR-6 Challan towards payment of Excise duty through their letter dated 19.07.2011. In the remand proceedings before the Original Authority, the Original Authority has held that burden of duty was passed by the appellant to the customers and therefore, he rejected the refund application through Order-in-Original No.215/Refund/2012 dated 29.08.2012. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the appellant preferred appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant produced the copy of CA certificate with ledger accounts of the customers to whom credit notes were issued by the appellant. The appeal was decided through Order-in-Appeal No.01-CE/LKO/2013 dated 07.01.2013. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appellants were n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough specific invoices. He further contended that the issue is covered by pronouncement by High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum Vs. Jineshwar Malleable Alloys reported at 2012 (281) ELT 43 (Kar.) and pronouncement by High Court of Rajasthan in the case of U nion of India Vs. A.K. Spintex Ltd. reported at 2009 (234) ELT 41 (Raj.), pronouncement by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana Vs. Bharat Box Factory Ltd. reported 2007 (218) ELT 355 (P H) and pronouncement by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Vs. Shiva Analyticals (I) Ltd. reported at 2009 (14) STR 301 (Kar.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
