https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53207 The case involved appeals regarding the refund of excise duty paid on parts of pressure cookers. The appellants claimed refund, arguing that the duty paid on parts was not passed on to buyers as there was no increase in the price of pressure cookers. The Tribunal emphasized that constant product prices did not conclusively prove non-passing of duty incidence. The refund claim was rejected based on a precedent from the Madras High Court, indicating that duty incidence was likely passed on to buyers due to constant prices. The Revenue's appeal was allowed, affirming the rejection of the refund claim. en-us Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:52:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53207 The case involved appeals regarding the refund of excise duty paid on parts of pressure cookers. The appellants claimed refund, arguing that the duty paid on parts was not passed on to buyers as there was no increase in the price of pressure cookers. The Tribunal emphasized that constant product prices did not conclusively prove non-passing of duty incidence. The refund claim was rejected based on a precedent from the Madras High Court, indicating that duty incidence was likely passed on to buyers due to constant prices. The Revenue's appeal was allowed, affirming the rejection of the refund claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53207