TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 482
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his appeal is filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal dt. 20-3-2003 which set aside the order-in-original. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice but filed a cross objection to the Revenue's appeal. Since the matter is of 2003 I take up the appeal for disposal in the absence of the respondent. 3. Heard the ld. JDR. 4. It is the submission of the ld. JDR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority for considering the issue afresh. 5. On perusal of the records produced before me I find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the refund claim, which has been filed by the respondent in respect of the amount of duty, which was paid by them due to wrong calculation and not considering the price as 'cum duty prices'. It is also seen that the amount of trade discount given....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se. The copies of the Central Excise invoices issued by the manufacturer show that duty had been paid on the goods at Stockists price, which were cum duty price. The burden of the excess duty paid by the manufacturer was borne by the Appellants in terms of the agreement entered between the two. While selling out these duty paid goods to the Stockists, the appellants have issued invoices showing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been preferred by the manufacturer who had paid the excess duty. Instead, it has been preferred by the Appellants who have borne the incidence of excess duty paid on the excisable goods in question. The Appellants have produced a disclaimer certificate from the manufacturer stating therein that they had no objection on the Appellants claiming rebate of duty on the goods cleared by them. In terms o....