9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the refund of the duty of the amount paid by the respondent on the clearances made by them in respect of the finished goods. The respondent cleared the finished goods at the assessable value, which were higher than the purchase order placed on them by the purchasers, the respondent paid the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of MRF Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise Madras as reported at [1997 (92) E.L.T. 309 (S.C.)] and also on the case of Traco Cable Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin [2004 (172) E.L.T. 33 (Tri. Bang.)]. 3. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the respondent had filed certificate issued by the jurisdictional Range Supe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. In the instant case the buyer had placed order by way of Purchase Orders in which the price was also indicated. The appellants wanted a price increase, which was not agreed to by the buyer. Thus, the price indicated in the purchase order became final price at which the transaction had to be completed. The appellants issued credit notes and the buyer took credit of the duty portion as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with other evidence it established that the appellants had paid excess duty, which was required to be refunded. Besides, it was not a case of unjust enrichment, as the appellants had no additional gain, if the subject refund was granted to them. In view of this, I find that, the lower authority has erred in rejecting the refund claim and hence the impugned order is liable to be set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
