TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee from the customers. Thus, the said excess burden of duty was not passed on to the customers by the Appellant - refund allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. E/1992/2011 (SM) - Final Order No. 53133/2017 - Dated:- 26-4-2017 - Hon ble Sh Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Sh. Hemant Bajaj Ms Sukiriti Dass, Advocates : for the Appellant Ms. Kanu Verma Kumar, DR : for the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok K. Arya M/s Miraj Products (P) Ltd. is in appeal against Order in Original No. 78/2010 dated 11.03.2011 whereunder the refund claim of excess duty paid under the provision of Chewing Tobacco Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 has been rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der rejected the said refund claim of ₹ 24 lacs. The Appellant is now before the Tribunal in appeal against the said impugned order in appeal. 3. With the background of above facts, both sides represented by ld Counsels Shri Hemant Bajaj and Ms.Kanu Verma Kumar, have been heard. 4. The main submission of the Appellant is that the duty paid to the Revenue was not passed on to the customer and they have produced evidences to this effect in the form of their ledger entries and certificate of Chartered Accountant. The ld Counsel for the Appellant states that the said amount was shown in their ledger as amount receivable from the Revenue. 5 On the other hand, the ld Counsel for the Revenue vehemently submits that the test of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered Accountant certificate is a good evidence to show that cannot be sidelined lightly without production of any other evidence to show that the said certificate is a wrong certificate. 6.2. Further Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CCE v/s Dabur India 2014 (304) ELT 321 (All.) observes as under: 15. From the materials brought on record, it is clear that the M.R.P of the product was not increased and the deposit of differential excise duty was made by the respondent under protest with clear representation that refund shall be claimed. 16. 17. 18. 19. The conclusion recoded by the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise that the amount of ₹ 1,14,78,517/- paid by the respondent was part and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
