2010 (7) TMI 735

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts leading to the filing of the appeal are that the assessee, during the month of March, 2003 had cleared Tyre Flaps to different divisions of M/s. CEAT Ltd. situated at Ahmedabad, Nasik, Delhi and Varanasi by paying duty at the rate of 16% BED and 176% SED. In the budget of the year 2003-2004, vide notification No. 11/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 the rate of excise duty in the second schedule was reduced to 8% in respect of the goods falling under Chapter 4012.19. However, assessee continued to pay SED at the rate of 16% during the month of March, 2003. Therefore, assessee filed refund claim of Rs. 2,46,240/- being the excess amount of Special Excise Duty paid by them during the month of March 2003. The adjudicating authority rejected the sai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee claimed refund of duty which was on the basis of debit note raised by the customer in the name of the assessee in the month of June, 2003. The assessee has not furnished any evidence to show that burden of duty is not passed on to the customer. Therefore, adjudicating authority and first appellate authority were justified in rejecting this claim and Tribunal was in total error in interfering with the aforesaid orders which was based on legal evidence. Therefore, he submits that a case for interference is made out. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that mere raising of a debit or credit note is not proof of payment of duty. It is only an adju....