TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es which the appellants manufacture in that unit are cleared on payment of duty of excise and taken to various sites where the poles are installed as part of their electrification projects. The said unit happened to pay excess duty amounting to Rs. 58,125/- on certain quantity of poles cleared in the above manner during October 1987 to January 1990. They filed a refund claim for this amount on 25- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment was not applicable to the claim inasmuch as the goods were not cleared to "any other person". In other words, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods were cleared by the MPEB to themselves. He further ordered the refund to be made to the claimant. In the present appeal filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the only ground is as under :- "It is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the goods. Ld. Counsel argues that, there being no buyer for the goods in question, the department was not entitled to the benefit of the presumption under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act. The goods cleared by MPEB from their PCC pole factory unit on payment of duty were consumed by the Board at their project sites. There was no question of incidence of duty passing on to "any other pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place. Hence the Revenue is not entitled to the presumption under Section 12B. Further, it is undisputed that MPEB was clearing the goods from its factory to its own project sites for consumption. There was no clearance of the goods to "any other person" and therefore the question of incidence of duty passing on to "any other person" under Section 11B did not arise. The admissibility of the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
