9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. - The issue relates to refund claim. 2. The Counsel submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly made observation that the customer is not entitled for refund. In this context, he drew our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1B does provide for the purchaser of goods applying for an obtaining the refund where he can satisfy that the burden of the duty has been borne by him alone. Such a person can apply within six months of his purchase as provided in Clause (e) of Explanation-B appended to Section 11B. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that the impugned provisions do not provide for refunding the tax collected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchasers of high priced goods where the duty component is large and not by all and sundry/small purchasers. This practical inconvenience or hardship, as it is called, cannot be a ground for holding that the provisions introduced by the 1991 (Amendment) Act are a "device" or a "ruse" to retain the taxes collected illegally and to invalidate them on that ground assuming that such an argument is pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, it was fairly conceded that the impugned order was passed prior to the amendment of Section 35A. 3. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of the judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the aforesaid cases, we find observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the customer is not entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
