9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower rate by letter dated 1st September, 2014. Payment was made in accordance with the lower rates. It is therefore clear that 3,000 pieces were supplied at a lower price. The appellant therefore is clearly entitled to the refund of excess duty. There is no requirement of provisional assessment nor is it a case of unjust enrichment. It is therefore not possible to sustain the order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Railway Authorities as in the meantime lower rate of ₹ 424.72/- for each piece has been fixed. Accordingly, the Railways asked the appellant to send its consent for acceptance of this rate so that delivery period could be extended. The appellant accepted the lower rate and the delivery period was extended from 31st July, 2014 to 31st December, 2014. The Railways made payment of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the appellant could not supply 3,000 pieces within the stipulated period and for these pieces additional purchase order dated 28th July, 2014 was issued @ ₹ 424.72 per piece after the delivery period was extended. The goods were actually supplied in terms of invoice dated 12th August, 2014. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e useful to reproduce the contents of the letter dated 26th August, 2014 sent by the Railways, to the appellant regarding applicability of lower rates against purchase order dated 6th August, 2013 and it is as follows :- 1. PO No. 13160809, dated 6-8-2013 was placed on you @ ₹ 555.00 each (Basic Rate) Packing @ Nil + ED @ 12.36% Extra + CST @ 5% Extra + Freight @ Nil i.e. ₹ 654.7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that 3,000 pieces were supplied at a lower price. The appellant therefore is clearly entitled to the refund of excess duty. There is no requirement of provisional assessment nor is it a case of unjust enrichment. It is therefore not possible to sustain the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is accordingly set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to refund of ₹ 72,306/- with in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
