9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) Shri Harvinder Singh, A.R. for the Respondent(s) Per: B. Ravichandran The appeal is against the order dated 21.01.2011 of Commissioner (Appeals) Delhi (Panchkula). 2. The appellant is engaged in the electricity distribution as their main activity. They were having workshops to convert duty paid insulated or enamelled wires and strips into transformer coils which were then captively used in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion of unjust-enrichment, it was held that the appellant failed to produce sufficient supporting evidences to substantiate that the burden of excise duty had not been passed on to anybody else. On this basis the claims have been rejected. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was engaged in the process of distribution of electricity and they were not selling an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. CCE, Chennai - 2004 (164) ELT 84 (Tri. Chennai) as well on CCE, Lucknow vs, Oswal Chemical & Fertilizers Limited - 2009 (92) RLT 585 (CESTAT-Del,), the Id. Counsel submitted that the products cleared by the appellant was controlled and the tariff is fixed by the statutory authority and there is no question of unjust-enrichment involved for the assessee. 4. Ld. AR submitted that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this regard. As such, the question of passing on the duty burden suffered in the workshop, on the goods which were captively consumed in the repair of transformers, which were again consumed in the distribution of electricity, does not arise. In this connection, we rely on the decisions cited by the appellant (supra) in their support. The Tribunal noted that the appellant suffered huge losses duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
