9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Member (T)]. - Briefly stated facts of the case as set out in the impugned order are as follows :- 1.2 The appellants herein are a Government Department i.e, Telecom Department of Government of India. According to them they had imported electronic exchange equipment for 5 local exchanges. They placed one order on the supplier and the supplier made one Invoice No. 132-22109-21-4 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... local exchanges. This claim obviously is wrong in view of the quantity shown as one system. The appeal, therefore, has been rejected and hence this appeal before us. 2.1 Learned representative, Shri S.R. Jadeye, A.G.M (Admn.) has submitted that they placed one order for local telephone exchanges for different places, namely, Diu, Chatterpur, Alibagh, Chamoli and Uttar Kashi. These 5 telephon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter dated 14th December, 1989 from the suppliers, NEC Corporation addressed to the Chief General Manager of the Projects, Bombay. He submits that although this letter has been referred to in the impugned order but this has not been taken into consideration by the lower authority while arriving at its decision. Learned representative, therefore, submits that this matter may be remanded to the Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntity shown in the invoice is not correct and that is why the need for seeking a clarification from the suppliers arose. The lower authorities should not have merely gone by this contradiction when a submission is being made that the quantity shown in the invoice is not correct. They should have looked into other documents like placing of orders, proforma invoice and other collateral document as m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
