M/S M.R.F. LTD. vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Tribunal upheld the denial of the refund claim. The assessee failed to discharge its burden under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to prove that the duty burden was not passed on.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a refund claim, which was denied by the department. The core issue was whether the assessee had passed on the excise duty burden to its customers.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee discharged its burden of proving that the excise duty burden was not passed on to customers as required by Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 12B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2255 of 2002 PETITIONER: M.R.F.LTD. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/2008 BENCH: S.H. KAPADIA & B. SUDERSHAN REDDY JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R
Being aggrieved by the denial of refund claim made by the assessee the appellant has come to this Court by way of special leave petition. The short question which arose before the Tribunal was whether the assessee had passed on the duty burden to its customers. Burden was on the assessee to show compliance of section 12B of the Central Excise Act 1944. In this case the Department had referred the matter to the Assistant Director to examine the cost construction method adopted by the assessee. The Assistant Director has given its report based on weighted average cost as the assessee has failed to furnish the exact cost attributable to the various components of the final product manufactured by the assessee namely PCTR. The said report has been accepted by the Tribunal. We find no -2- infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The assessee has failed to discharge the burden placed on it under Sec.12B. Accordingly the civil appeals is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026