9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Raju 1. This appeal has been filed by M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The appellant had filed a claim of refund in respect of supply of Low Sulphur High Flash High Speed (LSHFHS) Diesel to Indian Navy. They claimed exemption under Notification No.64/95-CE dated 16/03/1995. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that they had purchased LSHFHS from M/s.BPCL on payment of duty and stored in their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid/passed on by the appellant. The matter was agitated before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected their appeal on the ground that it is not clear that who was borne the incidence of duty of the said amount. 3. Ld. Counsel argued that they have not recovered any duty amount from the Indian Navy as is apparent from the invoice issued by the appellant to the Indian Navy. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stant Commissioner, Chembur-I Div. to BPCL stating that Appellant's should have claimed refund of Rs. 1,42,59,155/- ii) Certificate from BPCL stating that the duty amount of Rs. 1,2,13,104/- was paid by appellants to BPCL in respect of invoices dated 21/09/2005, 27/09/2005 and 18/10/2005. iii) BPCL's letter dated 14/03/2007 addressed to Asst. Commr. Chembur-I Div. stating that they have received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The said ground of rejection has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been challenged by the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed consequential relief and in the said proceedings of granting consequential relief, lower authority have raised the issue regarding who was borne the burden of duty paid. In this regard, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
