TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88/2004, dated 31-3-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The respondents are the manufacturers of Drip Irrigation/Sprinkler Irrigation and PVC/HDPE/LDPE pipes. A dispute arose between the respondents and the revenue with regard to the classification of the goods manufactured by the respondents. The respondents cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able order, the assessee filed a refund claim application with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore. The Assistant Commissioner held that inasmuch as the assessee has not followed the proper procedure under Rule 233B for payment of duty under protest, their claim is barred by limitation of time. Consequently the claim was rejected. But the Commissioner (Appeals) in his detailed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product, the burden of duty has been transferred to the customers. 3. Smt. R. Bhaghya Devi, ld. SDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue (Appellant) and Shri N. Venkataraman, Advocate for the respondent-assessee. 4. Ld. SDR reiterated the grounds of appeal and also the points in Order-in-Original rejecting the refund claim. 5. Ld. Advocate clarified that the respondents who paid duty under prot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y paid on the impugned goods had been absorbed by the firm and has been shown as expenditure in profit and loss account and has not been passed on to the customers. Under these circumstances the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) is right and Revenue does not have any strong ground for challenging the order. 6. We have gone through the relevant records carefully. On the question of time bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
