2005 (12) TMI 167 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim partly allowed and partly rejected.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal where the refund claim rejection was partially allowed and partially rejected. The appellants mistakenly raised the invoice for C DOT RSU exchange equipment to M/s. BSNL with a higher assessable value and paid duty accordingly. Upon realizing the mistake, they issued a revised invoice with the correct duty amount. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim based on a different ground, stating that the duty was correctly paid. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision without addressing the issue of unjust enrichment. During the hearing, it was revealed that two sections of the equipment were bought out by the appellants and supplied directly to the site, making them not liable for excise duty on those items. The revised invoice reflected the correct duty payable, which was less than the amount initially paid. A certificate from BSNL confirmed the payment made based on the revised invoice. The rejection of the refund claim was based on a ground not mentioned in the show cause notice, which was deemed improper as the appellants were not given an opportunity to address this issue.

The Tribunal found that the rejection of the refund claim on the ground of adding the value of bought out items to the assessable value was beyond the scope of the show cause notice. As there was no prior mention of this ground, it was deemed improper to reject the claim based on an unnotified issue. The Order-in-Appeal was set aside to the extent that it rejected the refund claim of Rs. 63,048, and the appeal was allowed.