9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows :- 1.1 The appellant firm herein entered into two contracts with M/s. India Metal and Ferro Alloys (IMFA). In one Contract dated 6-6-85, a price of Rs. 6,800.00 per M.T. for supply of 600 M.T. of Carbon Electrode Paste (hereinafter referred to as goods ) was entered into between the parties. As per this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T. was proposed to be disallowed and has been disallowed by the adjudicating authority on the aforesaid ground. 1.2. On the plea of limitation made by the appellant-firm before the adjudicating authority, the said authority has found that the appellant firm wilfully suppressed the fact of non-fulfilment of the contracted conditions from the Department, which was a vital information for availmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Standard Electric Appliances v. Superintendent of Central Excise reported in 1986 (23) E.L.T. 302. He further submits that the discount actually given to the party has not been reverted back to the appellant-firm. 3. Opposing the contentions, learned J.D.R., Shri S.N. Ghosh submits that the non-fulfilment of the Contract is not denied by the appellant- firm. The discount was available to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not been fulfilled. Therefore, in our view, the adjudicating authority has correctly denied the benefit of the discount claimed by the appellant-firm, inasmuch as the terms of the Contract were not fulfilled. Therefore, on merits, we do not find much strength in the appellants case. 5. The next plea of the learned Advocate is on the question of limitation. He submits that every fact was known ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
