2005 (2) TMI 734

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... duty. During the hearing of the case, learned DR has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographics India Ltd. [2004 (166) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)], in support of his contention that price being same is not sufficient satisfaction. Reliance has specifically been made on the following observation in Para 18 of the judgment which is reproduced herein below :- Before concluding, we may state that "18. uniformity in price before and after the assessment does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyer as such uniformity may be due to various factors. Hence, even on merits, the respondent has failed to make out a case for refund. Since re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not passed on the incidence of duty to their buyers. Such is not the case here." 3.As against this, the contention of the learned Chartered Accountant is that when the refund claim is by a manufacturer uniformity in price before and after the period of taxation would be sufficient evidence in view of the following observations contained in Para 17 of the Apex Court's judgment in Allied Photographics India Ltd. (supra) as under :- "..........It was submitted that since the sale price of the goods before and after the assessment remained the same the burden of excess duty was absorbed by the respondent. It was submitted that in any event the sale price of the goods increased much less than the amount of duty (differential) involved in ....