TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on a subsequent date. This has been held to be sufficient to replace the presumption raised under Section 12B of the Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/98/2008 - A/682/2008-WZB/C-II/(SMB) - Dated:- 19-9-2008 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Anupam Dight, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri T. Tiju, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. This appeal is filed against the order-in-appeal No. SRK/431/ Bel/2007 dt. 12-11-2007. 2. The necessary facts that arise for consideration are the appellant s factory was visited by the prevented staff of then Mumbai-III Commissionerate and they booked a case on account of wrong availment of exemption under Notification No. 1/93, dt. 28-2-1993. Duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Original, appellant is before me 3. The Ld. Counsel draws my attention to the impugned order and the Order-in-Original passed by the adjudicating authority while sanctioning the refund claim. It is his submission that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Modi Oil General Mills [2007 (210) E.L.T. 342 (P H)]. It is his submission.that the said decision was followed by the Tribunal in various decisions. He also submits that it is the fact that the amount has been paid by them subsequent to the clearances of the goods from factory, hence there is no question of unjust enrichment. 4. Ld. JD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir respective orders dated 24-10-2001 and 16-4-2002 have recorded a categoric finding of fact that the incidence of duty could not be transferred to the buyer after the date of clearance as the duty had been paid on a subsequent date. This has been held to be sufficient to replace the presumption raised under Section 12B of the Act. Therefore, we find that no question of law warranting admission of this matter would arise and accordingly the application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Since it is undisputed that the amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- has been paid by the appellants subsequent to the clearances of the goods, the ratio squarely covers the issue in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
