2011 (11) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....Kang Heard Ld. A.C.A.R. for Revenue. 2. The appellants vide letter dated 3.11.2011 made a request to decide the appeal on merits. 3.  The brief  facts  of the case are that the appellants filed refund claim of Rs. 21,63,625/- on the ground that the amount in question was paid in spite of the fact that during the period 4.12.2001 to 21.12.2002, the additional duty of excise....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntion of the Revenue is that onus is on the assessee to show that burden of duty has not been passed in the case of refund and relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. vs. CCE&C -2005 (181) ELT. 328 (S.C.). 6. We find that as per the provisions of Sec.11B of the Central Excise Act, onus is on the assessee to show that burden has not been pas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at he has paid the amount for which relief is sought, he has not passed on the burden on consumers and if such relief is not granted, he would suffer loss.' 7. In the present case, the admitted fact is that the appellants recovered the amount in question from their customers. The only contention is that the amount was paid to the Central Government much before the recovery from their customers.....