2006 (4) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vered the duty from the customers. On appeal to the Tribunal, matter was remanded for a fresh decision, after making observation that the Assistant Commissioner should verify the claim of the appellant that their selling rates remained unchanged irrespective of the duty burden. The said observation was made on the basis of judgment of the Madras High Court in Dollar Company, Madras v. Govt. of India,1986 (24) E.L.T. 245. It was also observed that amended provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excies and Salt Act, 1944 (for short, the Act) may also be examined. 2. After remand, it was observed by the learned Assistant Commissioner that there was no increase in the selling price and in fact selling price had decreased but since price was i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....also to be examined along with judgment of the Madras High Court, the Assistant Commissioner was justified in holding that inference of passing on of burden could be drawn even if the price remained the same or price was reduced. It is also submitted that observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court could not be ignored. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any substantial question of law arising in the present case. Decision of the Tribunal is in accordance with law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal (supra) and also Section 11B of the Act. The order of remand did not debar the Assistant Commissioner from looking into the provisions of Section 11B of the Act or drawing an inference that the element o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Hon'ble Supreme Court remains binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. 8. We may also refer, in this regard, to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Shenoy & Co. and others v. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle II, Bangalore and others - 1985 (21) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.) = AIR 1985 SC 621, which has been reiterated in Director of Settlements AP and others v. M.R. Apparao and others, AIR 2002 SC 1598, wherein, it was observed : "This being the position, notwithstanding the enunciation of the principle of res judicata and its applicability to the litigation between the parties at different stages, it is difficult for us to sustain the argument of Mr. Rao that an indefeasible right has accrued to the respondents on the basis of the ....