9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The issue involved in the present case is the refund of the appellant was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment for the reason stated by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, the appellant could not produce documentary evidence to show that the incidence of differential duty paid in excess by the appellant has not been passed on to the customer. Therefore the appellant is befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocument to the CPWD dt. 14.8.1997 regarding the clause for taxes and duties. (iv) Certificate dt. 10.5.2002 issued by CPWD to the appellant. (v) Five invoices dt. 19.2.1999, 22.2.1999, 22.2.1999, 24.2.1999 and 27.3.1999 all issued by the appellant to the depot wherein the duty was charged at the rate of 30%. (vi) Appellants letter dt. 5.3.1999 addressed to the CPWD. (vii) CPWD letter dt. 8.4.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir depot under a cover of stock transfer invoice, they paid the excise duty at the rate of 30%. However, they were paid by the Customer i.e. CPWD excise duty at the rate of 18% which is mentioned in the contract document. It is a claim of the appellant that they have submitted various documents which clearly shows that the amount of excise duty between 30% paid by them and 18% reimbursed by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
