2002 (8) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The original adjudicating Order No. 38/92, dated 5-11-92 demanded differential duty of Rs. 42,80,181/- on the ground that the benefit of Notification Nos. 130/83-C.E. and 131/83-C.E., dt. 27-4-83 claimed in the classification list are not available. The Adjudicating Authority directed the assessee to pay the differential duty. Thereafter the appellant filed a statutory appeal with an application f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tral Excise, Visakhapatnam. 2. The refunds were rejected on the grounds that - "It is evident that the issue revolved round whether or not the appellants passed on the incidence of duty to their customers. If they have not, they are clearly entitled to the refund in terms of the appellants decision based on the CEGAT decision. The order-in-original itself does not give any idea whether the i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ords they collected the duty element from the customers. Out of such amounts they deposited Rs. 10 lakhs with the Department. Before granting refund of this amount, in terms of the appellate order the Asstt. Collector is duty bound to examine the claim in terms of Section 11B of Central Excises and Salt Act. He did so and found that the appellants' attempt to argue that what has been paid is only ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....des and considered the submissions and the photocopy of the EA-1 filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and find - (a) From the EA-1 application filed, in Column 6, it is clear that no amount of duty demanded were paid and a stay petition against Order No. C. No. V/C.L. 2/91-92/NAR/VA2, dated 5-11-92 was pending on 5-11-92 before the Commissioner (Appeals). The amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid ....