9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fixed at lower side at final settlement of price- Commissioner (A) has observed that Respondents issued credit notes to the buyer and the difference in the price was adjusted by the buyer from the outstanding payment of Respondents and it is not hit by bar of unjust enrichment - Commissioner rightly held that the refund claim is not hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Ltd., a subsidiary company of M/s. Coal India Ltd. The price was fixed on provisional basis. The respondents cleared the goods at the price of Rs. 14,144/- per MT. Subsequently, the price was fixed at Rs. 13,282/- per MT and duly certified by M/s. Coal India Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that Respondents issued credit notes to the buyer and the difference in the price was adjusted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urpose of proper appreciation, the relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- "The appellants supply the impugned goods to M/s. Coal India Ltd (CIL), a public sector company. They had a contract with CIL for the period 2001-2002 for supply @ Rs. 14,414/- PMT, which was valid upto 30-6-2002. By a letter dated 12-8-03, CIL requested them to continue supply at the same rate provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the price was adjusted by the buyer from the outstanding payment of appellants, after settlement of price. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly held that the refund claim filed by the respondents is not hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. So, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, all the Appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected. (Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
