9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 fixed price inclusive of all duties, freight and insurance. While entering into the contract, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 duty was calculated @ 13% whereas the excise duty was increased to 16% on the product w.e.f. 1-3-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clusion 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. I find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Division Bench of the Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nrichment 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 court) &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
