9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tendent (A.R.) for the Respondent Per : Ramesh Nair This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. SB/277/Th-I/10 dated 15/12/2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-I, whereby Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original No. 1532/09-10 dated 20/11/2009 and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The fact of the case is that due to problem in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Fans' were shown. There is mismatch of invoices and purchase order of the goods cleared, all the invoices bearing number KI-24 to KI-35 were generated on computer but number of invoices thereunder has been corrected by overwriting by hand. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 20/11/2009, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which has been rejected reiterating the finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the clerical mistake occurred in the invoices and ER-1 returns. It is to be noted that debit note indeed issued by the customers of the appellant that itself shows that excess value was charged, accordingly excess duty was paid, which required to be refunded. 4. Shri. Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods cleared is components but the facts remains if the excess duty was paid even on the components why refund claim should not be given to the appellant. As regard discrepancies pointed out by the lower authorities such as wrong purchase order number mentioned on the invoice, wrong description etc., these reasons are not sufficient to reject the refund claim of the appellant. Despite such mist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
