TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . REPRESENTED BY : Shri M.M. Ravi Rajendran, JDR, for the Appellant. Shri M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. These appeals are filed by the Revenue. Vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 243/2004 C.E. dated31-5-2004, the Commissioner (A), vacated Orders-in-Original and allowed refund of the following amounts. Order-in-Original Amount Period No. 108/2003 dt.30-12-2003 Rs. 65,26,513/- Jan. 2000 to April 2002 -do- Rs. 14,36,958/- May 2002 to Nov. 2002 No. 01/2004, dt.5-1-2004 Rs. 9,40,727/- Dec. 2002 to Mar. 2003 The Adjudicating Authority had sanctioned the refund claims ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent is not represented. 3. We have examined the case records and carefully considered the submissions by the learned DR. In the instant case, the claim for refund arose on the Tribunal deciding that the activity of cutting, slitting, folding and repacking of tissue paper engaged in by the respondents during the material period did not constitute manufacture. The respondents had charged a composite price before and after the decisions of the Tribunal that the impugned activity was not exigible and Excise duty was not attracted. The endorsement on the invoice that rates are inclusive of all duties and taxes had to be understood as applicable to only duties or taxes which were payable. In M/s. Cimmco Ltd. v. CCE - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 246 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome down. They have also reduced the margin of profit. Finally the stand of the appellant regarding leviability of duty on the tissue papers subjected to certain process like cutting, slitting, folding, etc., has been upheld by the Hon ble CEGAT,Bangalore. In my view, the ratio of Cimmco Ltd. v. CCE, is squarely applicable to the present case. The appellants have amply demonstrated that the duty burden has not been passed on to the consumers by way of detailed cost sheet. The Orders-in-Original cannot be upheld and they merit rejection. 3.2 We find that the Revenue has not challenged the above finding of the Commissioner (A) that the assessee had not passed on the incidence of duty claimed as refund. In these circumstances, we hold that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
