9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of refund claim was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondent filed refund claim in respect of seven Bills of Entries and the same were sanctioned and credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, as the respondent could not produce the evidence of non-passing over of the incidence of duty. The matter was contested and Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other supplementary documents to prove that the incidence of duty has not been passed on by them. He relies upon the decision in the case of JCT Ltd. v CCE. Chandigarh reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. 467 (Tri.) and CCE, Nagpur vs. Maharashtra Cylinder Ltd. reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 688. 4. Considered the submissions made by Ld. DR and perused the re cords. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate than the cost of goods though the duty element was not shown separately. The Annexure is also duly verified by the Chartered Accountant. The column 12 of the Annexure shows that the appellant had sold the goods below the cost price of, the goods shown in column 9. The Chartered Accountant's certificate is specific and reveals that the appellant had not passed, on the incidence of duty to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self is an evident to prove that the respondent has not passed on the incident of duty. This conclusion is on the fact that no prudent business man would sell the goods at a price lower than the cost of price, unless there is a distress sale. In this case no evidence is brought on record that there was a distress sale. 5. Further the case laws on which Ld. DR relies upon has not considered the Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
