2009 (9) TMI 771

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....taraman and M.N. Bharathi, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER The assessees herein were manufacturers of tyres and tubes and were availing concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 268/82-C.E., dated 13-11-1982 as per which the maximum exemption that could be availed was 50% of the investment made on plant and machinery before the date of first clearance and as per which, the exempt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y and also directed disposal of the pending writ appeal within three months. The writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 12-10-1988; SLP was filed by the Revenue along with application for stay of operation of the High Court's order in the writ appeal. In the meanwhile the assessees filed four refund claims, details of which are as under :- S. No. D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 30-6-1997 were issued proposing rejection of the claims for refund on the ground of unjust enrichment. Vide order dated 14-9-1998 the claims were rejected on the ground that the assessees had not discharged the burden cast upon them to show that they had not passed on the incidence of duty to the buyers. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessees appeal; Revenue challenged his order by fili....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ext of dealing with a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 it is incumbent on the authority to examine the above question and record a reasoned finding thereon. The lower appellate authority in this case has not done this. We therefore set aside the impugned order and direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a fresh order containing a clear finding on the above question ....