9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner who allowed the refund of Rs. 60,886/- to the appellants, but directed that the same should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. 2. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. The Counsel has sent a request for adjournment. But the record shows that on the last date of hearing also the Counsel sought the adjournment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refund of the excess amount. Their claim was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner, but the amount was directed to be deposited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. That order has been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. I have heard the SDR and gone through the record. The refund of the disputed amount in cash, or cheque or DD has been declined to the appellants on the ground that they had fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cost of their final product remained the same and no alteration/variation was brought about in it. It was for them to prove by adducing tangle evidence that the burden of duty had not been passed on by them to the ultimate consumers. But they have failed to do so. That being so, the authorities below have rightly directed credit of the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
