2011 (11) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are 100% EHTP unit engaged in the manufacture and export of computers, their parts and accessories falling under Chapter Heading 8471, 8473 and 8429 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 reduced the duty on goods falling under Chapter Heading 8471 from 16 to 12%. The assessee was permitted to sell certain quantity of final products in DTA based on their export performance. The Jurisdictional Customs/Excise authorities vide communication dated 14.12.2007 directed the assessee that the concession provided under Notification 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 was not applicable to them and that they have to pay duty at the rate of 16%. This instruction was subsequently reversed vide t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 501 and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. Panihati Rubber Ltd. reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 41 (S.C). 5. Opposing the appeal, the learned DR submits that the appellants have clearly mentioned higher rate and duty amount in the invoices and therefore, it is presumed that they have passed on the duty burden to the customers. In this regard, he relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CEAT Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. 442 (Tri.-Mumbai). 6.1. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. It is true that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....omers upheld the finding that there was no passing of duty burden in the said case. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. Panihati Rubber Ltd. (cited supra), appreciating the fact that the contract for sale indicated element of excise duty as 'nil' and payment of duty was under protest as insisted by the department, approved the finding that the burden of the excise duty  was not passed on and that they were entitled cash refund. b) The Tribunal in the case of Amadalavalasa Cooperative Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam, taking note of the nature of contract which was inclusive of duty payable held that when the higher duty was paid the price stood reduced and th....