1999 (12) TMI 159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Mewa Singh, DR, for the Respondents. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in this appeal is whether the refund claim filed by the appellants has been rightly rejected or it should have been accepted. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed a refund claim on the ground that the product i.e. Glass Wool mats was not dutiable. The appellants cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lies of goods under contract. He submits that in some cases, it was required to be declared that the prices were inclusive of excise duty. The learned Counsel submits that actually during the material period, the sales of the appellants were panic sales. The sales realisation was much below the cost of goods on manufacture. He submits that thus the burden of duty was not passed on to the customers....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e refund claim may be allowed. Shri Mewa Singh, learned DR appearing for the respondent Commissioner, submits that during the relevant period, the invoices showed a composite price in respect of Part I price list. He submits that Central Excise duty being an indirect tax, is normally collected by the manufacturers from the customers. He submits that the gate passes issued during the material pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Counsel submits that in majority of the cases, there was no indication that the burden of duty was passed on. He submits that in respect of these cases, no benefit has been given nor the evidence produced that the burden of duty was not passed on, in view of the fact that cost of production was much higher than the sales realisation was not considered by the lower authorities. He submits that the....