PRISM CEMENT LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants filed this appeal against the Order -in -Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held as under : Having regard to above discussion and findings, the appeal is rejected along with claim and impugned Order -in -Original stands modified to the above extent, i.e. instead of crediting the amount to the consumer welfare fund, the refund claim is rejected.

(2.) The contention of the Revenue is that the adjudicating authority after sanctioning the refund, credited the same to the consumer welfare fund on the ground that the appellants had not proved the fact that the burden of duty has not been passed on to their customer. The appellants filed the appeal against this order passed by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) even in the absence of appeal filed by the Revenue, set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority whereby sanctioned amount has been ordered to be credited in the consumer welfare fund. The contention of the appellants is that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), in the absence of any appeal filed by the Revenue, setting aside the adjudication order is not sustainable. The contention of the appellants is that the issue before the Commissioner (Appeals) was whether the burden of duty has been passed on to the customer by the appellants. On this the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.

(3.) The learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.