Cce vs Bombay Tyres International Ltd. on 28 November, 2000
(24) CCE v. Corona Cosmetics & Chemicals Ltd., reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 356, wherein also similar view was taken as in the case of CCE v. Pawan Tyres (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.41 seconds)Cce vs Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. on 25 March, 1998
(9) CCE v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 125. This was a case where the duty was paid through PLA as the assessee was restrained by the authorities from availing the credit. Apart from that, the final goods sold was at the price fixed by the Government.
Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 April, 1976
(11) Vidyut Engineering Co. v. U.O.I. reported in 1999 (34) RLT 598 (Kar.). This was a case where the Tribunal set aside the duty demand and the petitioner filed refund claim. The department was directed to pay interest @12% p.a., with instructions to the Deptt. that the interest can be recovered from the officers responsible for delay.
M/S Modi Rubber Ltd. vs Cce, Meerut on 10 April, 2001
(13) Modi Rubber Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 129, para 9 regarding filing of D-3 intimation and it was held that subsequent filing of the refund claim cannot be held to be barred by time.
United Phosphorous Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 7 August, 2001
(18) United Phosphorous Ltd. v. CCE, reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 542, relating to date of entry in regard to goods returned for repair.
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Metro Tyres Ltd. on 18 March, 1998
(20) CCE v. Metro Tyres, reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. A75 (S.C.), whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the Department against the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 410, has concurred with the finding of the Collector (Appeals) on appreciation of evidence that the assessee has not passed on the credit to the customers. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed appeal against the said decision of the Tribunal.
Itc Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. vs Cce on 14 September, 2000
(21) ITC Bhadrachalam v. CCE, reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 582, wherein it was held that burden to prove that incidence of duty not passed on to customers discharged by the assessee as sale price remained the same even when the assessee availed exemption and also when duty was paid by assessee after withdrawal of exemption.
M/S. Acc Cement Cos. Ltd. vs Cce, Bhopal on 1 January, 2001
(22) ACC Ltd. v. CCE, Jamshedpur, reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. 277, wherein it was held that burden of discharging incidence of duty, having not been passed on stands discharged when there was no change in sale price of the final product on excess payment of rate of SED because the total quantum of duty paid by assessee during the relevant period continued to be the same irrespective of the shortage of one and excess of another.
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Corona Cosmetics And Chemicals (P) Ltd. on 24 February, 2000
(24) CCE v. Corona Cosmetics & Chemicals Ltd., reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 356, wherein also similar view was taken as in the case of CCE v. Pawan Tyres (supra).
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
8. Now we have to examine whether the appellants are eligible for refund. We observe that in terms of Section 11B(1) the refund claim shall be accompanied by documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in Section 12A) to establish that incidence of duty has not been passed on by the claimant to any other person. Section 12A stipulate that every person who is liable to pay duty of excise on any goods, shall at the time of clearance of the goods, prominently indicate in all the documents relating to assessment sales, invoice and other like documents, the amount of such duty which will form part of the price at which such goods are to be sold. In this case admittedly no evidence has been submitted by the assessee along with the refund claim to prove that they have not passed on the incidence of duty to any other person. Their assertion is that the duty paid on occasional and unpredictable under Rule 57F(1)(ii) removals made to supplement the stock in case of shortages can hardly determine the price and that the required evidence is available on record. We do not find any force in the plea of the appellants. We note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their land mark judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries v. U.O.I. reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) has laid down the law regarding refund of duty. Para 91 of the said judgment is extracted herein below for convenience of reference: