https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153504 The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to prove that the duty incidence, including transportation and insurance costs, had not been passed on to the customer. Despite selling telephone instruments at a fixed price to the Department of Telecom, the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support their refund claim. As per the Central Excise Act, the burden of proof was on the appellant to demonstrate that the duty incidence was not transferred. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) decision granting the refund was overturned, and the Revenue's appeal was upheld. en-us Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:44:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153504 The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to prove that the duty incidence, including transportation and insurance costs, had not been passed on to the customer. Despite selling telephone instruments at a fixed price to the Department of Telecom, the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support their refund claim. As per the Central Excise Act, the burden of proof was on the appellant to demonstrate that the duty incidence was not transferred. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) decision granting the refund was overturned, and the Revenue's appeal was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153504