CCE Vs. BHARAJ ENGG. INDUSTRIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Examined the records and heard Ld. DR. There is no representation for the respondents, who have requested for dispensing with personal hearing and for decision of the case on merits.

(2.) It appears from the record that the original authority disposed of the respondent's claim for refund of duty amount of Rs. 49,000, out of which refund to the extent of Rs. 35,000 was sanctioned but credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of Sub -section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and the claim for the balance amount of Rs. 14,000 was rejected as time -barred. In the appeal preferred by the claimant against the decision of the original authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioned cash refund of Rs. 35,000 after holding to the effect that the claim for refund of that amount was not hit by unjust enrichment. In relation to the amount of Rs. 14,000, the lower appellate authority affirmed the decision of the original authority. Before the Tribunal, there is no appeal against rejection of the refund claim in respect of the amount of Rs. 14,000. The present appeal of the Revenue is against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the amount of Rs. 35,000.

(3.) Heard Ld. DR, who has reiterated the grounds of this appeal. It has been stated as a ground of this appeal that, "the copies of the gate passes (GPIs) placed on record do not clearly bring out that the incidence of duty has not been passed on by the party". But I have not come across any relevant gate pass on record. Copies of 4 gate passes have been shown to me by the DR today, but they do not indicate the name of the buyer of the goods, nor are they othrewise correlatable to the refund claim in question. Yet another ground raised by the appellant is thai, in the contract between the respondents and their buyer, there was a condition that the buyer would bear the duty burden. Such a condition, if at all, would not by itself indicate that the burden of duty had, in fact, been passod on by tho respondents to their buyor. It has furthor been contended In this appeal that tho gate passes clearly mentioned the assessable value and central oxclso duty and, therefore, it was incorrect to inter that the element of duty was not charged by the party from their buyer. In my view, all these grounds fail in the absence of authentic copies of the relevant gate passes. Several opportunities were given to the Revenue to produce the gate passes. But the documents have not been brought on record yet.