9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Smt. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. - The appellant is a PSU Unit. They have obtained clearance from the Committee of Secretaries to contest this case. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 12/2004-S.T. dated 27-9-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund claim in respect of tax paid in excess during the period f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24-2-2004 to the Deputy Commissioner. However, this point is countered by the learned SDR by relying on the Larger Bench judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. BDH Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-V rendered by a Misc. Order No. 159/08/SMB/C-l dated 9-7-2008 [2008 (229) E.L.T. 364 (T-LB)]. She points out that the Larger Bench, after due consideration, has in a similar circumstances he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction. We also note that the law relating to refund has been fully analysed by the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries (cited supra) which makes it very clear that all types of refund claim be thereof excess duty paid or otherwise are to be filed under Section 11B and have to pass the proof of not passing on the incidence of duty to others. The recent decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
