9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the refund claim, filed by the appellants, was rejected on the ground that the appellants failed to prove that the burden of duty has not been passed on to their buyers. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants, M/s. O.N.G.C., filed a refund claim of Rs. 18,91,310/- with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise on the ground that the appellants had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G is fixed, so there is no possibility of passing on the duty burden to the ultimate buyers. Appellants also contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. M/s. Addison Co. reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 429 (T), which was subsequently, reversed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Addison Co. v C.C.E. reported in 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excise duty of 8 per cent. M/s. IOC, who are the buyers of LPG, made payment to M/s. ONGC, the appellants. On realising the mistake, M/s. IOC recovered the excess amount paid in respect of duty from subsequent monthly bills of 1-8-2000 to 15-8-2000. These facts are not disputed by the revenue. 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v Addison ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llel to the facts in M/s. Adarsh Guar Gum Udyog (supra). In the present case, the customer of M/s. IOC pointed out the mistake committed by M/s. ONGC and immediately adjusted the excess duty paid in subsequent monthly bills. 8. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) held that Section 12B of the Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
