9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority was within his powers to reject the refund claim as unsubstantiated. The appeal lacks substance and is rejected. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturing polyester film falling under heading 3920.31. The appellants submitted price-list in Part II in which they had shown cum-duty price as Rs. 93/-. The cum-duty price was approved by the proper officer. In the pricelist Part II, the assessable value was shown as Rs. 73.66 per kg. However in the invoice No. 2588/0280, dated 28-5-1988, the appellants calculated duty amount assuming Rs. 93/- as assessable value. When the appellants came to know of this mistake, they filed a refund claim on 5th Aug. 1988. The Asstt. Collector rejected the refund claim on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri R. Santhanam, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the lower authorities had travelled beyond the direction given by the ld. Collector (Appeals) when the case first came up before him. He submitted that the appellants submitted the contract along with the pricelist in Part II and had got cum-duty price approved by the proper officer. He submitted that it was a mistake while issuing the Gate Pass No. 272, dated 28-5-1988. Duty was calculated on the cum-duty price and not on assessable value. He submits that the Apex Court in the case of M/s. MRF reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 clearly held that whenever cum-duty price is declared, from the price so declared, duty amount should be deducted for arriving at the assessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise duty charged by the manufacturer has not been paid by them. Since the pricelist in Part II was approved and that since the customer has certified that the Excise duty amount by mistake calculated on the cum-duty price not reimbursed by them to the appellants. I find that it was purely an authentic mistake. Insofar as the genuineness of the certificate given by the customer is concerned. I find that a specific direction was given by the ld. Collector (Appeals) to examine this aspect, there is no rebuttal therefore, the certificate was genuine and I therefore, hold that there is no mistake insofar as the certificate given by the customer is concerned. Having regard to the above finding, I hold that refund is due to the appellants. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
