9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be paid to the appellant. An agreement to pass on the duty if refunded, cannot come to the aid to of the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 52164 of 2014 - Final Order No. 57653 /2017 - Dated:- 6-11-2017 - Hon ble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Hon ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for the Appellants -Assessee Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent -Revenue ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan: This appeal is filed against the Order-in Appeal No. 214 (OPD) CE/JPR-II/2013 dated 31.12.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur II. 2. This is the third round of litigation before this Tribunal. The pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed filed by the appellant, are admissible on merit in the light of the Apex Court s decision in the Ujagar Print s case. But the claims were not paid to the appellant on the ground that they have failed to establish that the incidence of tax has not been passed on to the buyers. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 6. With the above background, we heard Shri Amit Jain, learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Shri R K Mishra, learned DR for the Revenue. 7. The Ld. Advocate, after taking us through the history of the case submitted that the refund claims under Section 11B of the Excise Act are not hit by unjust enrichment as the amounts were deposited under protest. Though the duty payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed anything on record to show that they have suffered the incidence of tax and as has been held by the Hon ble Madras High Court, the refund is liable to be rejected. 9. We heard both sides and perused the record. Any claim filed for refund of Central Excise duty is to be processed and dealt with only in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944. This section presumes that the incidence of any duty for which refund has been claimed has been passed to by the manufacturer who has paid such duty. Only if it is established that the incidence of such duty has not been passed on, can the refund be paid in cash to the claimant. In the instant case there is no dispute that the duty has been paid in excess and that the refund is admissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
