2006 (3) TMI 353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri C. Sarabheswara Rao, Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - The Revenue has filed this appeal against Order in Appeal No. 5/2004 dated 13-1-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Guntur. 2. The respondents, manufacturers of agricultural pesticides were availing the benefit of SSI Notification No. 9/2000. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der on the ground that the order in appeal is contrary to basic facts that assessee's had sold the goods on CUM duty price which included duty. 3. Shri K. S. Bhatt, SDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue and Shri C. Sarabheswara Rao, Consultant appeared for the Respondent. 4. The learned SDR relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal and urged the point that the fact that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8% duty. In other words, during the period when duty at higher rate was paid, the duty actually payable was only at lower rate. In these circumstances, the correct presumption of the Revenue should be that the correct rate of duty payable is passed on to the buyer and not that the higher duty wrongly paid had been passed on. To put it differently, even when the respondent paid duty to the excheque....