TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (11) TMI 229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....- This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 137/2008-C.E., dated 30-6-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I) Bangalore. 2. Mr. N. Anand, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, represented the Revenue. 3. I heard both sides. 4. The appellants wanted to export certain goods. They procured inputs without payment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected the refund claim. The appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in his findings in the first paragraph has held that the appellants are eligible for the Cenvat credit. In the second paragraph he has stated that the refund claim is hit by bar of unjust enrichment and therefore they are not entitled for the refund. In the order portion, he has stated that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the duly burden has not been passed on to the buyer. She also stated that the duty burden has definitely in this case passed on to the buyer as in the cost of the final product the duty would have been included by the appellant. She stated that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is legal and proper and therefore the same should be upheld by the Tribunal. 8. Normally, when there is a finding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant is not a sound one. If this argument is accepted, then no Cenvat credit at all could be given to any manufacturer, because every manufacturer would definitely include the duty on the inputs in the final products. When the duty on the inputs is included in the final product there is a cascading effect on the cost of the final product. To mitigate the ca....