2007 (9) TMI 516

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... paid on 29-1-99 ; there was a dispute relating to differential duty amounting to Rs. 3,07,339/- and therefore provisional assessment was done taking a bank guarantee of Rs. 61,500/-; the final assessment passed 26-3-01(?) and bank guarantee passed encashed on 24-4-01. (b)     On appeal by the party, the assessment order was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dt. 16-8-01; the appeal filed by the department, against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed by Tribunal vide their order dt. 18-6-03. (c)     In pursuance of the order dt. 16-8-01 of the Commissioner (Appeals), read with the order of the Tribunal, the appellant claimed a refund on 18-12-03 which was sanction....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the date of order of Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioning the refund} to 17-11-04. 5. Learned SDR submits that the bank guarantee given by the appellant can be considered as a pre-deposit only till the final assessment was completed and the same was encashed. On the date of encashment the duty stood paid to the Department in pursuance of the order of finalization by the competent authority. When the order was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), refund became due. He also submitted that in every case including provisional assessment also, the responsibility is on the claimant to prove that they have paid the duty and that they have not passed on the burden of duty to the consumer. Since the duty has been directly collected afte....