9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case, in brief, are that the respondents are supplying explosives to M/s. Northern Coalfields Ltd., a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. as per contract. They paid duty on the provisional contract price of Rs. 14,144/- per M.T. which was finalized vide letter dated nil of M/s. Coal India Ltd. at Rs. 13,282/- per M.T. They filed refund claim of excess payment of duty which was rejected by the origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs (Bhilwara) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 989 (Tribunal). 3. Learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents submits that on identical issue the Tribunal in the case of Solar Capital Ltd., reported in 2006 (205) E.L.T. 403 (Tri.-Mum.) allowed the refund. He also submits that on identical issue the Tribunal in the case of Universal Cylinders Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, reported in 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper appreciation of facts relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- "Heard both sides. 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 2001-02 for supply @ Rs. 14,414/- PMT, which was valid up to 30-6-2002. By a letter dated 12-8-2003, CIL requested them to continue supply at the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount from payment already made to assessee. It is further held that in these circumstances the Revenue cannot claim that incidence of duty has been borne by the assessee's customers. I have also noted that the Tribunal in the case of Special Blasts Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, reported in 2005 (192) E.L.T. 331 (Tri.-Del.) has taken similar view. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
