1998 (6) TMI 310

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llected the central excise duty from any person. Since the certificate was already on record before the lower authority, it is allowed to be taken on record. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of various articles of copper alloy and aluminium including castings falling under Chapter 74 and 76 of CETA. Some of the castings are subsequently used as input by other manufacturers of machines and appliances. Their products were classified under Chapter 84 and 87 as parts of machinery and mechanical appliances by the Jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner, whereas, their claim was under Chapter 74 and 76 of CETA. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by an Order dated 6-4-1990 approved classification as claimed by the appellants, setti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat it was, in fact, passed on. It was concluded by him that if the buyer has borne the incidence of duty, the appellants will not be eligible for the refund. 3. Shri R.D. Waghley, the ld. Chartered Accountant for the appellants contended that in terms of Section 11B (1) and Section 11B (2) and proviso (d) & (e), refund can be made to the appellants, if the duty has not been passed on by them to any other person. The term "any other person" in the Section has been used in the sense "a person other than the buyer" to mean the ultimate consumer. Reliance was placed on the Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Adarsh Metal Corporation v. U.O.I. - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 483, wherein, it was held that as long as no duty has been passed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quipments Ltd. The buyers also have admittedly used the material in the manufacture of their final product. The certificate from the Central Excise Supdt. produced by the appellants dated 26-8-1991 certifies that M/s. Premier Irrigation have paid duty which is the subject matter of the refund claim on the purchase of gun metal castings viz. sprinkler bodies & sprinkler swing arms of different models for use in manufacture of sprinklers for agricultural irrigation purposes and they have not collected duty from any buyers. The certificates says that the sprinkler purchased are exempted from duty under Notification No. 141/88-C.E. The above would show that the duty burden has been passed on by the appellants to their customer and this customer....