9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and four hundred and sixty-one) was paid by them on the said goods. The said equipment was installed in the appellants factory. According to them, it started giving some problems in 1996 and they got in touch with their foreign supplier, but deposed their technical person for inspection etc. It was found that grinding roll was damaged and has to be replaced by the foreign supplier under a mutually agreed warranty against manufacturing defects. On 16th January, 1997, the defective goods were despatched by their foreign supplier. As per the appellants, though the said goods were free replacement, the foreign supplier raised the invoice against 100% payment by mistake. Subsequently, on discussions, it was clarified that the goods sent by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period. He submits that the very fact, that the foreign supplier sent the goods as free replacement, itself shows that the transaction was covered by warranty. The reasoning of the authorities is based upon the assumption and presumption and there is nothing on record to show that the goods were covered by warranty. As regards in the principle of natural justice, he submits that they had produced on record the Chartered Accountant s Certificate showing that the duty burden has not been passed on to their customer as examined from the records is such certificate should not be accepted by the authorities. He relies on the Tribunal s decision in the case of CC (Import) Mumbai v. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. reported in 2002 (149) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce to the contrary and in view of the fact that the goods have been sent free of cost by the foreign manufacturer, it is required to be concluded that the said impugned goods were covered by the warranty. As such, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to relief under the notification in question. 6. As regards the unjust enrichment aspects, the appellate authority has observed that the books of account have not been produced by the appellants to explain that the burden of incidence of duty has been borne by them and not passed on to any other person. The appellants have relied upon the Chartered Accountants Certificate and have also referred to the Tribunal s judgment as reported in 2002 (149) E.L.T. 772 (T) = 2002 (50) RLT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
