Limenaph Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/943182
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnOct-13-2009
Case NumberAppeal No.E/392 of 2003
Judge THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
AppellantLimenaph Chemicals
RespondentCommissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli
Advocates:Shri M.N.Bharathi, Advocate. Ms.Indira Sisupal, JDR
Excerpt:
per jyoti balasundaram the appellants are manufacturers of cem adhesives. during the period 17.9.98 to 7.12.98, they paid duty @ 25% advalorem on their clearances whereas the effective rate during this period was 18% adv. therefore, there was an excess payment of rs.1,24,472/- for which claim for refund was filed and rejected by the asst. commissioner on the ground that the appellants could not establish that they had not passed on the burden of the duty to the consumers. the commissioner (appeals) upheld the adjudication order; hence this appeal. 2. we have heard both sides. the appellants have not been able to show that they discharged burden cast upon them in law to show that they have not passed on incidence of duty to their consumers. the fact that there was no change in prices collected from the consumers irrespective of duty structure, is not sufficient to hold that they have not passed on incidence of duty. since the burden cast upon the appellants in such cases has not been discharged, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
Judgment:

Per Jyoti Balasundaram

The appellants are manufacturers of CEM adhesives. During the period 17.9.98 to 7.12.98, they paid duty @ 25% advalorem on their clearances whereas the effective rate during this period was 18% adv. Therefore, there was an excess payment of Rs.1,24,472/- for which claim for refund was filed and rejected by the Asst. Commissioner on the ground that the appellants could not establish that they had not passed on the burden of the duty to the consumers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order; hence this appeal.

2. We have heard both sides. The appellants have not been able to show that they discharged burden cast upon them in law to show that they have not passed on incidence of duty to their consumers. The fact that there was no change in prices collected from the consumers irrespective of duty structure, is not sufficient to hold that they have not passed on incidence of duty. Since the burden cast upon the appellants in such cases has not been discharged, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.