9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excess duty paid during Mach 2003 by mistake. The customer did not pay the higher duty which had been discharged by the assessee in their invoices. They claimed refund on the ground that they are not liable to pay the excess duty. This is a case where there was no issue of Credit Note by the assessee. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the assessee had issued a Debit Note and, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench in the case of CCE (Appeals), Tirupati v. Audithiya Minerals Ltd. - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 868 (Tri.-Bang.); CCE, Guntur v. Triveni Glass Ltd. - Final Order No. 1412/2005 dated 16-8-2005 Reference is made to Delhi Bench's order in SPBL Limited v. CCE, Jaipur- 2006 (193) E.L.T. 594 (Tri.-Del.), A.K. Spintex Limited v. CCE, Jaipur - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 746 (Tri.-Del.), ONGC v. CCE, Vadodara - 2003 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consumer had not borne the duty. In all the above cited cases, S. Kumar's case has been distinguished on facts. The assessee has proved that he has borne the higher duty which was paid by mistake. Respectfully following the ratio of the above noted judgments, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court) _______ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
