Commissioner Of Central Excise Vs. Burlingtons' Exports

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Burlingtons' Exports

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 23, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41269

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/41269
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: T Anjaneyulu
Decided On: Dec 23, 2005
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner Of Central Excise

Respondent

Burlingtons' Exports

Excerpt

2. the department is in appeal aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the commissioner (appeals), central excise, mumbai, wherein sanction of the refund has been upheld in favour of the appellants and set aside the transfer of the same to consumer welfare fund under section 11d of the central excise act, 1944 as ordered by the asst, commissioner, central excise, thane. there is a clear finding of the commissioner (appeals) that duty incidence has not been passed on to the buyers.3. on making enquiry on the last date of hearing, the respondents have produced a letter dated 01.12.2001 addressed to them by their buyer, which shows that the amount shown in the invoice dated 05.05.2001 to the tune of rs. 5,10,709.13 (rupees five lakhs ten thousand seven hundred nine and paise thirteen only) does not include central excise duty as the buyer did not want to pay the same as per their earlier discussion in the subject matter. the aforesaid letter, which is produced today by the respondents, further strengthens the view taken by the commissioner (appeals). therefore, i do not see any illegality in the impugned order passed by the commissioner (appeals), accordingly, the same is confirmed. in the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Full Judgment

2. The Department is in appeal aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai, wherein sanction of the refund has been upheld in favour of the appellants and set aside the transfer of the same to Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as ordered by the Asst, Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane. There is a clear finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that duty incidence has not been passed on to the buyers.

3. On making enquiry on the last date of hearing, the Respondents have produced a letter dated 01.12.2001 addressed to them by their buyer, which shows that the amount shown in the invoice dated 05.05.2001 to the tune of Rs. 5,10,709.13 (Rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Nine and paise Thirteen only) does not include central excise duty as the buyer did not want to pay the same as per their earlier discussion in the subject matter. The aforesaid letter, which is produced today by the Respondents, further strengthens the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, I do not see any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), accordingly, the same is confirmed. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Burlingtons' Exports Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge T Anjaneyulu