TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les, 2002, which thereafter were finalized vide Orders-in-Original dated 22.01.2019 and 25.06.2019, consequent upon which the appellant filed refund claims of Duty and interest on the ground that the same represented the excess amount of Duty and interest paid for the periods 2004-05 and 2005-06, April 2008 to March 2009, April 2009 to March 2010 and 2012-13 to 2015-16. 3. The Adjudicating Authority vide Orders-in-Original dated 27.09.2019 while partly sanctioning the refund, directs the same to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the appellant had not proved that the incidence of Duty had not been passed on to the customers. The First Appellate Authority having dismissed the appellant's first appeal vide impugned Ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner [2005 (191) E.L.T. 885 (Tribunal)]; (c) M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner [2005 (189) E.L.T. 425 (Tribunal)]; (d) Commissioner v. M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. [2014 (303) E.L.T. 496 (Guj.)]; (e) Commissioner v. M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. [2015 (319) E.L.T. A118 (S.C.)]; (f) Commissioner v. M/s. Sandvik Asia Ltd. [2015 (323) E.L.T. 431 (Bom.)]; (g) M/s. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C.Ex., Lucknow [2017 (355) E.L.T. 438 (Tri. - All.)] 5.1 Ms. T. Usha Devi, Learned Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue, submitted that the appellant primarily has not proved that the Duty element has not been passed on to its customers. She would also contend that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee or as to their contents. 8. The sole reliance placed on the JRO's report by the Adjudicating Authority, unfortunately, has not been put across for rebuttal, which is also an undisputed fact and the same has been used to draw a presumption against the appellant which, according to me, is a serious flaw not only of the procedure, but also of the principles of natural justice. 9. Further, from one of the letters of the appellant, the appellant might have waived the issuance of Show Cause Notice, but certainly not their Right to the documents that may be used against them. The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority in the case of M/s. Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. C.C.E. & C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....diture for other payments may be receivable, the same may not be the case with Duty payment, but that alone cannot decide an issue. The refund here, in this case, is claimed for a few years only and just by referring to one year's Books of Account, it cannot be concluded that the expenditure having not been carried forward, the same is not considered as a receivable. In any case, nothing turns in so far as taxation is concerned on a mere accounting treatment. Moreover, this is not the basic doubt in the mind of the Adjudicating Authority who perhaps had the privilege of looking into the Books of Accounts during the course of adjudication proceedings and therefore, the view expressed by the First Appellate Authority is without any basis and ....