9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants and Shri Uday Kumar, ld. JDR for the respondents. 2. Shri Chattopadhyay submits that the total cost of importation of Damar Batu is of Rs. 31,24,095.75 and the sale was to the tune of Rs. 24,04,150.90. In addition to that, there had been a closing stock of Rs. 97,056.00 being total of Rs. 25,01,206.90. Hence, there was an overall loss of Rs. 6,22,888.85. He submits that it is clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y v. Commr. of Central Excise, Ghaziabad - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 261 (Tri.- Del.) ; (iv) National Winder v. Commr. of Central Excise, Allahabad - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 350 (S.C.); He, therefore, submits that the appeal may kindly be allowed. 3. Shri Uday Kumar supports the impugned order. 4. In the present case, I find that the appellants filed appeal against the order of assessment. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. In the present case, the appellants did not submit any sale invoice. Neither the appellants had submitted any proof regarding incident of duty. Under Section 28D of the Act, the presumption is that ever person who paid duty on the goods would be deemed to have passed on full incidence of duty to the buyers of such case. Unless he proved otherwise. It was incumbent upon the appellants to prove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
