Appellant established that incidence of duty was not passed on to customers. Refund sanctioning...

Appellant established that incidence of duty was not passed on to customers. Refund sanctioning authority's report confirmed duty was not mentioned on invoices issued to customers from depot. Clearances from factory to depot were stock transfers within appellant's units. Appellant bore burden of duty without collecting it from customers. Difference in clearance values was due to gold price fluctuation, not valuation issue. Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding incidence of duty was passed on to customers, barring refund on unjust enrichment grounds. Appellant is eligible for refund. Order crediting amount to Consumer Welfare Fund set aside. Appeal allowed, refund to be granted to appellant. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X