ORDER
P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. The appellants herein are processing fabrics on job work basis and paying the duty to the department. They are also passing on the burden of duty to the persons on whose behalf they are undertaking the job work for the job charges from their customers (M/s. Oswal Industries herein). The lower authorities have rejected the refund claims of the appellants on the ground that they have passed the burden of duty to the customers i.e., job workers. Hence, these appeals by the appellants herein.
3. Ld. Advocate, Shri G.S. Bhangoo for the appellants submits that no doubt, they have passed on the burden of duty to the customer but M/s. Oswal Industries on whose behalf they have done the job work have not passed on burden of duty to their customers. In support of this plea, they have produced invoices of M/s. Oswal Industries in respect of goods sold by them to their customers. These invoices did not show any collection of duty by M/s. Oswal Industries from their customers. Ld. Advocate drawing our attention to Clause (e) of proviso to Sub-section (2) to Section 11B submits that the refund shall not be credited to the consumer welfare fund but paid to the applicants, if such amount is relatable to the duty of excise borne by a buyer and if he had not passed on the incidence of such duty to any such other person. Ld. Advocate submits that since the appellant’s buyers i.e., M/s. Oswal Industries had not passed on the incidence of duty to any other person, therefore, the refund of duty should be made to the applicants.
4. We have also heard ld. SDR, Shri A.K. Agarwal, for the Revenue.
5. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. We are unable to accede to the plea of the ld. Advocate Shri G.S. Bhangoo. The appellant herein is a manufacturer. They are clearly covered by Clause (d) of proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 11B inasmuch as they do not fulfil the condition of Clause (d). They, being the manufacturer, have passed on the incidence of such duty to the other person namely M/s. Oswal Industries. Therefore, the benefit of duty refund cannot be given to the appellants in terms of Sub-section (2) to Section 11B. This view is further strengthened where the meaning of “relevant date” is provided under Clause (e) to Explanation ‘B’. It is provided therein that in the case of a person, other than the manufacturer, the date of purchase by such person is the relevant date. In other words, M/s. Oswal Industries could apply for refund and then the admissibility of refund could be examined by the concerned Assistant Commissioner. But in any case the manufacturer cannot be given the refund, as has been rightly done by the lower appellate authority, and therefore, we dismiss the appeals.