TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the party. Decided in favor of assessee. - C/2581/2010 - Final Order No. 776/2011 - Dated:- 25-11-2011 - Mr. M. Veeraiyan, J. Appearance Mr. M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate for the appellant Mr. M. Ravi Rajendran, JDR, for the Revenue This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 168/2010 dated 30.08.2010 by which order of the original authority crediting the refund of Rs. 7,14,998/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund stands upheld. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellants are 100% EHTP unit engaged in the manufacture and export of computers, their parts and accessories falling under Chapter Heading 8471, 8473 and 8429 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. After the latter clarification dated 14.06.2008 also, they have maintained the same prices. 4.2. He submits that they have not passed on the excess duty burden to the customers and therefore, there is no bar of unjust enrichment applicable to the present case. In this regard he relies on several decisions, particularly, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Organan (India) Ltd. reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 201 (S.C), decision of the Tribunal in the case of Amadalavalasa Cooperative Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 501 and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n DTA sale remained the same based on the contracts with the buyers. 6.2. Keeping the above factual scenario in mind, it would be appropriate to discuss the decisions relied upon by both sides in support of their respective contentions. a) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Organan (India) Ltd. (cited supra) taking note of the fact that there was no change in price post-levying of the duty and there was auditor's certificate certifying that the burden of customs duty was not passed on to the customers upheld the finding that there was no passing of duty burden in the said case. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. Panihati Rubber Ltd. (cited supra), a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
