9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) (for the Bench)]. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Nos. 1057/2003 dated 28-10-2003, by which the order of the original authority rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 22,77,794/- has been upheld. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Relevant facts, in brief are as follows : (a) Appellant is a manufacturer of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two communications both dated 23-3-95 one relating to purchase order 30-5-94 and another relating to purchase order 16-12-94. (e) The appellant filed a refund claim in June, 1995 in respect of excess duty paid on supplies of the above two items made during 27-12-94 to 31-3-95. (f) Original authority rejected the claim on the ground that the documents like original invoices, original p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned in the amended purchase orders dated 23-3-95. They have also furnished a clarification dated 14-11-95 from DOT to the effect that the final prices of the above products were Rs. 1200/- and Rs. 799/-. Under these circumstances, the rejection of the refund claim of Rs. 22,77,794/- was not justified. 5. Learned DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). In the absence of the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tems. There is no finding that the appellant has received higher prices and corresponding duty amounts from DOT. The claim stands rejected on the ground that the appellant has not produced relevant documents. The documents produced by the appellant clearly support the claim on reduction in prices. It cannot be the case that after reducing the prices for these two items, the DOT had paid the higher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
