TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d both sides and perused the records. 3. The appeal No.E/3284/05 is filed by the Revenue against the impugned order on the ground that the first appellate authority has upheld the order-in-original, which held that the respondent herein is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.6/2003-CE dated 01/03/2003 and Appeal No.E/3950/05 is on the ground that the respondent had claimed the refund of amount of duty paid by them at the adjudication stage. The issue involved in this case is regarding the Central Excise duty payable by the respondent, who is a 100% EOU while making clearance to DTA. The respondent is a manufacturer of granite and marble slabs and cleared the same to DTA as per the provisions and discharged CVD @ Rs. 30/- per Sq. Mt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... affirmed by Supreme Court vide order dated 17/07/1997 (2001 (127) ELT A 162 (SC) has allowed the partys appeal on the ground that invoices are the best evidence to see whether or not burden of duty has been passed on by the manufacturer. The appellants have produced the copy of invoices along with PLA which clearly indicates that they have not passed on the differential CVD calculated @16%. Departments contention that appellant might have issued subsequent invoices or debit notes and hence the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable cannot be a ground without any evidence. Further I find that the appellants have produced a CA certificate stating that they have not recovered/claimed the amount of Rs. 36,00.934/- from the customers. The app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e precisely by the Honble High Court of Gujarat and Honble High Court of Delhi. It is also to be noted that the Apex Court has maintained the judgement of the Gujarat High Court and the Delhi High Court, hence nothing survives in this matter, the same has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of CCE Hyderabad Vs. Shanta Biotechnics Ltd. - 2010 (259) ELT 447 (Tri-Bang). 6. In view of the factual findings as recorded by both the lower authorities and the authoritative to judicial pronouncements, we find that the impugned order in this appeal is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. 7. As regards the Appeal No.E/3950/05, we find that consequent to the order-in-appeal in their favour (in appeal No.E/3284/05), the respon....