Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred on the ground that the incidence of duty had been passed on to customers, or whether the duty-paid soft ice-cream was captively consumed in the process of making hardened ice-cream so that refund could not be denied on that basis.
Analysis: The duty-paid soft ice-cream purchased from other manufacturers was taken into the factory and subjected to the process of hardening for manufacture of the final product. The Revenue did not dispute that the process was undertaken and that duty was paid on the final hardened ice-cream. On these facts, the intermediate goods were treated as captively consumed in the manufacturing process. The principle that refund is denied where the duty burden has been passed on to customers was held inapplicable in such a situation, and the reasoning of the cited precedents was found applicable to the facts of the case.
Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the ground of passing on the burden of duty, and the claim ought to have been allowed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessee was held entitled to refund with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where duty-paid goods are used in the assessee's own manufacturing process as captively consumed inputs and duty is also paid on the final product, the doctrine of passing on the duty burden does not bar refund.