Full Judgment
2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Counsel submits that there is sufficient evidence placed on record to establish that the duty burden had not been passed by the appellants to their customers and in this connection, he draws our attention to the affidavits filed by the customers which clearly state that they had paid the rate of duty as applicable under TI18-III(i) while the Revenu had levied a higher rate of duty applicable under TI-18 IH(ii) and to a chartered Accountant's certificate and to certain invoices which according to the learned Counsel would all bear out his contention that the amount of refund was required to be paid to the appellants. Learned DR, Shri Udhoji reiterates the findings contained in the impugned order, particularly drawing our attention to the detailed finding on the unsubstantiated claim, after considering all the documentary evidence.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the documents highlighted by the learned Counsel. In our view, these documents do not bear out the contention that the burden of duty had not been passed on to the assessees' customers. There is nothing in the invoices which would indicate this. The Chartered Accountant's certificate also is not conclusive of the contention as it only certifies that a particular sum of approximately Rs. 6.71 lakhs appears in the books of accounts of the appellants as "excise duty paid under protest account" and this cannot be interpreted as proof of non-passing of duty burden. The affidavits also do not advance the case of the appellants. We, therefore, find that the appellants have not been able to satisfactory explain that the duty burden had not been passed by them during the relevant period to their customers and, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, we uphold the same and reject the appeal.