Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Beacon Weir Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 19 March, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/407/2007
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.37/2007 (M-II) dated 27.02.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
M/s.Beacon Weir Ltd.
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Respondents
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities? :
Appearance :
Shri T. Ramesh, Adv.
Ms.Indira Sisupal, JDR For the Appellants For the Respondents CORAM:
Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 19.03.2010 Date of decision : 19.03.2010 Final Order No.____________ The claim for refund of Rs.5,68,751/- being the duty paid on parts of pumps captively consumed in the manufacture of final products viz.Pumps ( refund has been claimed on the basis of Notification No.236/86-CE dated 03.04.1986 exempting parts captively consumed in the manufacture of pumps for the period from 01.03.1986 to 03.04.1986) has been rejected on the ground that the assessees could not substantiate their non-passing on of the incidence of duty to their customers, and have not produced any documents to substantiate the certification of the Cost Accountant that they had not passed on the incidence of duty to their customers.
2. I have heard both sides. I find that the adjudicating authority had directed the assessees to produce Sales Ledger/General Ledger/Party-wise Ledger to verify the unjust enrichment aspect, which the assessees did not do, as they were not in a position to produce any of these documents which were not in their possession. Since the claim of the assessees remains unsubstantiated, the rejection of the refund claim is warranted. Accordingly, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT ksr 19-03-2010 ??
??
??
??
1 2