TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (10) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the Hot Air Stenter machine, they paid the duty during this period under protest. The dispute as to the correct ACP was decided in favour of the appellant vide Final Order No. 339/2000 dated 7-3-2000 of this Tribunal. Consequently, Jansons claimed refund of Rs.1,12,351/- found to have been paid in excess. The impugned order confirmed sanction of refund of the excess paid duty and crediting it in the Consumer Welfare Fund. Both the authorities found that the appellant had not established that the excess duty paid had not been passed dn to their customers. The Commissioner (A) relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in CCE v. Allied Photographics India Ltd. reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) to find that refund of duty paid under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rheads, material overheads, excise duty and profit margin etc. which were the basic requirements for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value/job charges in the impugned case. In as much as Jansons had paid duty then and there during the same month, it was quite possible that the element of duty including gallery portion formed part of the processing charges. It was for the appellants to discharge the burden of proving that the incidence of duty on gallery portion had not been included in the processing charges. As the appellants had failed to show that burden of duty had not been passed on to their customers, the refund claim was correctly rejected by the original authority. 3. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the appellant has s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. There is no logic or rationale to hold otherwise in the case of a job worker. However, in the instant case, it is shown by the assessee with particulars of invoices that it had charged the same composite charges including duty prior to 1-11-99, after 28-2-2000 and from 1-11-99 to 28-2-2000. Assessee does not have any evidence to show that the excess duty paid during 1-11-99 to 29-2-2000 on account of the ACP fixed including the gallery portion was not included in the composite charges collected. Assessee relies solely on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Dollar Co. (supra) which held that the uniform sale price before and after the change in classification, valuation etc. indicated that the excess duty paid had not been passed on.....