9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty in disposing off claim for refund of this amount and, if not, whether the competent authority did comply with statutory requirements thereon. 2. Briefly, the facts are that appellant is a manufacturer of rayon yarn, nylon tyre cord fabric and chemicals in chapter 28, 54 and 59 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. One of the products is 'sodium hypochlorate' classified under CTH 2828.90 of the said Schedule on which exemption available to 'bleach liquor' vide notification no. 195/86-CE dated 13th March 1986 had been claimed in classification lists filed thereafter. Though the classification list had been approved with effect from 1st March 1988, appellant was served with notice dated 30th January 1989 for revocation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been collected, that the payments had been made 'under protest', that the levy was without authority of law and that the claim had been filed within the prescribed deadline. The sole ground for rejection of the claim is the failure to satisfy the original authority that the burden of duty had been borne by the appellant. This, according to that authority, was an inescapable obligation as the letter of protest did contain an endorsement to the effect that marketing department should arrange to recover the duty from their customers. 5. None appeared for the appellant. Heard Learned Authorized Representative. We find that the matter can be disposed off without adverting to detailed submissions from either side. 6. One of the grounds of appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim on the ground of failure to discharge the obligation to evidence having borne the incidence of duty. Under section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, the competent authority is required to sanction the refund and credit the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund implying that claims that are found to be correct in establishing that duty has been collected in excess of that authorized by law cannot be retained in the Consolidated Fund of India but should be transferred to the Fund created for the welfare of the mass of unknown consumers who have borne the burden of duty. Therefore, while the authority may not have erred in not allowing the refund to the appellant, the rejection of the refund claim in the context of the finding, such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
