2007 (1) TMI 468

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Welfare Fund established under Section 12C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that the assessees failed to show that they had not passed on the duty burden of their product to their buyers. 2. The brief facts are that the appellants herein are engaged inter alia in the manufacture of Consumer Electronic Products like Radio sets and also purchase similar goods from other manufacturers viz. A.S. Electronics (ASE) and Poonitronics (India) Pvt Ltd. (PIPL). They claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Sr. No. 10(a) of Notification 57/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 with effect from 1-3-93 for products falling under Heading 85.27; the benefit was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner of C.E (A) vide orders dated 30-4-9 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fficient to prove that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to Buyers in the light of the Tribunal's Orders in (a)     Jyoti Structures Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus & C. Ex., Aurangabad - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 853 (b)     JCT Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 467 (c)     Commissioner of C.Ex., Ahmedabad v. Gopi Synthetics Ltd. - 2004 (164) E.L.T. 172. (d)    Interach Building Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 154. 4. Further, in the case of N.C.L. Industries v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Hyderabad - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 1015 the Tribunal has held that the Fact that cum-duty price of the product remains the same before and after r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nsformers & Electricals Kerala Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus., Cochin - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 60 is misplaced for the reason that, in that case, the C.A. Certificate clearly stated that the cost of the Transformer had already been pre-determined in the contract and the duty element has been borne by the assessees and the cost analysis clearly indicated that the cost of Transformer did not include this duty element, while in the present case, no costing data of the product is available. 7. In the light of the above discussion we hold that the assessees have not discharged the burden cast upon them to prove that the duty burden on the product has not been passed on to their buyers. The appellants pray that another opportunity be extended to them to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X