TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (12) TMI 353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri C. Harishankar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The instant appeals were filed by the Revenue against the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order sanctioning refunds and the appeals filed by the Department were rejected. 2. In this case, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of snuff. They filed four refund claims on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....647 (Tri.-Del.), which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The learned DR submits that as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, it is clear that the assessee would be entitled for the grant of refund only if he is able to show that he is not passing on the duty burden to any other person, which is claimed as refund. In this connection, the learned DR drew the attention of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustomers and variations in levies. As such in the instant case, the price adopted by the Assessee is subject to revision of duty rate and such enhanced rate is to be borne by the customer by way of further enhancing the price agreed upon, by the element of enhanced duty amount and such enhanced rate is not to be borne by the Assessee. As such the Assessee is not entitled for the aforesaid refund c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was recorded in the adjudication order, that "The party could not recover the amount of Luxury Tax from the customers......" It was observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the refund claims were sent to the Range Superintendent of the respondents for verification purposes and since no anomaly as regards the quantum of the refund was observed, the contention raised in the Department's appeals, ....