9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above the 18% that at the rate of 30% was not paid by the customer i.e. CPWD to the appellant - some of the documents were submitted along with their reply to the adjudicating authority. With these evidence there is no doubt that the incidence of duty was not passed on by the appellant to the customer or to any other person - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) for denying the refund claim is that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence to prove that the incidence of duty for which the refund was sought for, has not been passed on to the customer. In this regard, he submits that the goods were supplied to the Government department i.e. CPWD. The appellant have submitted all the documents before the Commissioner (Appeals) as d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional Assistant Commissioner wherein they have clarified that how the amount of differential duty was not recovered from the CPWD along with the reply. The appellant also submitted the correspondence made with the CPWD therefore it cannot be said that no documentary evidence was submitted in regard to the issue of unjust enrichment. 3. Shri H.M. Dixit, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appeari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e available on records, it is amply clear that the excise duty paid by the appellant over and above the 18% that at the rate of 30% was not paid by the customer i.e. CPWD to the appellant. I have also observed that some of the documents were submitted along with their reply to the adjudicating authority. With these evidence there is no doubt that the incidence of duty was not passed on by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
