9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order-in-appeal dated 19-3-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has reversed the order-in-original dated 19-10-2001 of the Deputy Commissioner and allowed the refund claim of the respondents. 2. The respondents filed a refund claim for Rs. 30,78,912/- on the ground that during the period from 1-11-99 to 29-2-2000 they had cleared excisable goods from the factory gate at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was also not disputed before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondents were liable to pay duty at the prices at which the goods were sold from the depots in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act as amended. 5. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that the goods were not available in the market at the lower price than the printed one on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents in the show cause notice. The duty liability was to be discharged by the respondents on the price at which they had sold the goods at the depots under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act as amended. Therefore, on the basis of the MRP on the packages of the goods, the refund claim of the respondents could not be disallowed. 6. Similarly, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e person who has paid duty". The learned SDR has not been able to cite any contrary law laid down by any other High Court. 7. In our view, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority and allowed the refund claim of the respondents. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
