https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51981 The Tribunal concluded the proceedings by allowing the department's appeal and dismissing the assessee's appeal. It set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, thereby upholding the adjudicating authority's decision. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the assessee to prove the non-passing on of duty incidence as a pre-condition for refund claims under Section 11B(2), aligning with the Supreme Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries. The decision highlighted the complexities involved in interpreting the passing on of duty incidence and the importance of adhering to statutory requirements without relying on presumptions or previous judgments. en-us Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Aug 2024 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51981 The Tribunal concluded the proceedings by allowing the department's appeal and dismissing the assessee's appeal. It set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, thereby upholding the adjudicating authority's decision. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the assessee to prove the non-passing on of duty incidence as a pre-condition for refund claims under Section 11B(2), aligning with the Supreme Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries. The decision highlighted the complexities involved in interpreting the passing on of duty incidence and the importance of adhering to statutory requirements without relying on presumptions or previous judgments. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51981