Dairy Tops Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Dairy Tops vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 31, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26459

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/26459
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Oct 31, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dairy Tops

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Excerpt

1. the appellants are not present. on earlier occasions also they had remained absent. the case is, therefore, decided on the strength of documents on record.2. the refund of rs. 39,526.38 was rejected by the assistant collector.in doing so, he held that the duty incidence was passed on by the claimants to their buyers. he had also held that the refund claimed was barred by limitation. the collector (appeals) upheld this decision on both grounds. hence the appeal.3. in the appeal memorandum, an earlier refund order has been enclosed where the assistant commissioner was satisfied that the burden of duty had not been passed on. i find that this order does not benefit the appellants, since the mode of commerce may have changed during the intervening period. in the present case, assessee has not secured any such certificate by the range officer. their claim that they had claimed the refund on the rt12 returns and therefore, the limitation would not apply, is also without any merit.

Full Judgment

1. The Appellants are not present. On earlier occasions also they had remained absent. The case is, therefore, decided on the strength of documents on record.

2. The refund of Rs. 39,526.38 was rejected by the Assistant Collector.

In doing so, he held that the duty incidence was passed on by the claimants to their buyers. He had also held that the refund claimed was barred by limitation. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision on both grounds. Hence the appeal.

3. In the appeal memorandum, an earlier refund order has been enclosed where the Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that the burden of duty had not been passed on. I find that this order does not benefit the appellants, since the mode of commerce may have changed during the intervening period. In the present case, Assessee has not secured any such certificate by the Range Officer. Their claim that they had claimed the refund on the RT12 Returns and therefore, the limitation would not apply, is also without any merit.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Dairy Tops vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Same Subject Excise