9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chase order for supply and installation of 305 Nos. of 1 KVA online UPS system with 4 hours backup and 7 Nos. of 2KVS online UPS system with 2 hours backup from the Public Works Department (PWD), Government of Karnataka. The appellant executed the above purchase order and supplied the goods on various dates between 20.6.2005 to 1.8.2005. At the time of removal of UPS, the appellant charged the excise duty on the manufactured goods since the purchase order issued by PWD indicated that value was inclusive of excise duty and sales tax. The consignee viz., PWD, Government of Karnataka was not aware of, nor they indicated in the purchase order that they would be eligible for the duty exemption benefit in terms of Notification No.108/95-CE dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut payment of duty under Notification No.108/95. He informed them that since they have failed to comply with the conditions, the appellant or the consignee would not be eligible to claim refund of Central Excise duty. Thereafter the appellants approached the PWD and PWD finally wrote to the Deputy Commissioner on 3.3.2006 that they would not reimburse the amount which was not paid by them being the Central Excise duty and the duty paid by the appellant may be reimbursed to the appellant. They also stated that there was delay on their part in producing the certificate. To this letter also department promptly replied on 23.3.2006 and it was stated that the certificate sent by them is of no relevance and if PWD did not want to pay the amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant to the department that there was a specific request to sanction refund of the amount paid and the learned counsel could not show the same to me. Seeking clarification whether refund can be claimed by the appellant or the consignee cannot be treated as a refund claim. It has to be noted that as early as 3.3.2006, PWD had written to Deputy Commissioner stating that they would not be paying the amount to the appellant and there was a delay in producing the certificate. The proper course for the appellant to follow was to file an appeal against the decision communicated to them by the Assistant Commissioner on 24.11.2005 stating that since they have not fulfilled the conditions under Notification No.108/95 they are not eligible for the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
