D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) Counsel for the appellant is present, however, counsel for the respondents is absent.
(2.) It appears from the facts of the case that the refund application was preferred by the respondent for Rs. 7,70,889.48 on 4-10-2006 on account of double payment of the duty on the same goods.
(3.) It further appears from the facts of the case that the refund application was rejected by Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division-IV, Jamshedpur, mainly on the grounds that looking to the provisions of Section 12(B) of the Central Excise Act, there is presumption that incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyer. This burden has not been discharged by the applicant (who is the respondent in this tax appeal).;