9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 7-7-2004 which set aside the order in original that rejected the refund claim of the respondent. 2. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused records. I find from the records that the refund claim has arisen due to the reason that the appellants were required to clear their final products to their purchaser at a fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsonal hearing and observe that in the present case purchase order No. MTNL/20-80 (238) 98-MM/WLL Subs. Terminals (45K) HEIL HFCL dated 4-7-2000 was issued to the Appellant for supply of single line fixed dated (Telecom Equipments). As per the purchase order the unit price of the said goods were Rs. 16,633/- inclusive excise duty. The purchase order of MTNL was of dated 4-7-2000 in which excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty is not deniable. 3. I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeal) has correctly come to the conclusion that due to the calculation based on less percentage of excise duty rate, the assessable value was wrongly adopted by the respondent to pay the Central Excise Duty. It is undisputed that the purchasers of the respondents did not pay them the excess excise duty charged by them in the invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact that the higher duty amount was not passed on, remains established. Provision relating to unjust enrichment cannot apply to the appellant s case. 4. Accordingly, respectfully following the Division Bench s order in the case of GAIL (supra), I do not see any reason for interference in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
