2008 (4) TMI 256

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is involved in these appeals and therefore, all appeals are being taken up together for disposal. 2. Heard the learned DR on behalf of the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents in spite of issue of notices. 3. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claims as the amount of duty had been passed on to their buyers and directed to credit the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....chment, since the incidence of duty was not passed on to the buyers. 5. The learned DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order without considering the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors v. CCE reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 989 (T) which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submits that Board Circular No. 317/33/97-CX, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., it is not in dispute that the contract was renewed for this period for supply Rs. 13,282/- PMT and that the appellants have paid back the excess amount and excess duty to M/s. CIL. Hence the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority allowing the refund to the appellants appears to be in order and is also in conformity with the precedent decisions of the Tribunal cited by him. Hence ....