TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1018
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MIshra, Authorised Representative ORDER Per Mr. P. M. Saleem M/s. Lohia Polyester Limited has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 12.08.2013 of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he allowed the appeal filed by Revenue before him. The issue involved is whether the refund of Rs. 7,00,873/- sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 03.08.2012....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, refund application should be accompanied by documentary or other evidences to establish that incidence of duty has not been passed on. It is also specifically provided under Section 11B (2) that the refund amount shall be credited to the Welfare Consumer Fund unless, interalia, the burden of duty has not been passed on. He therefore, contends that the burde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellants had collected Rs. 2.00 per Kg. on clearance of Texturised Yarn in the guise of PME charges from their customers towards Octroi and Transport charges and have not paid Central Excise duty on the same. The appellants debited the duty of Rs. 4,19,235/-, and Rs. 2,81,635/- through their RG 23 A Part II vide entry No. 906 and 908 dated 27.9.1997. Thus the amount paid was towards duty li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I do not find any evidence proving forced recovery debit and also there is no endorsement on the TR-6 challans for payment under protest as prescribed under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited vs. UOI 1997 (890) ELT 247 (SC) and in the case of Sahkari Khand Udyog Mandal Limited vs. Commissioner 2005 (18....