9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and to Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL). Both these customers are Public Sector Undertaking. The appellants are allotted preferential quota by M/s BSNL/MTNL for supply of various equipments irrespective of the facts, whether, their tender is accepted or not. However the price is determined on the basis of lowest price quoted by manufacturer/supplier in its tender. The customer places advance purchase order giving therein the description of goods, quantity of each goods and provisional price thereof. M/s BSNL place Advance Purchase Order No. CT/APO/41/2006-07 dated 29.01.2007 for the supply of 32 Channels, DWDM equipments listed in its Annexure A value of at Rs. 49,96,52,688/-. The provisional prices quo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the issue involved in the present case is as follows:- "(i) Whether the appellants have not given sufficient proof of excess payment of duties of excise for which refund claim has been filed. (ii) Whether the refund of duty shall cause unjust enrichment to the appellants." 3. The appellant in their support has raised the following grounds:- (i) In the original invoices issued under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 the goods supplied to M/s BSNL were described by its generic name i.e. LB DWDM CHL, Optical Line Amplifier and Optical Add Drop Amplifier, which, included all other equipments necessary for its installation and functioning, which, inter-alia included customized software. They paid duties o excise on the composite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh [1989 (43) ELT 205 (SC)] ii.) BWL Limited Vs CCE Chandigarh [2004 (168) ELT (Tri. Delhi). iii.) J.R. Fabrics Ltd Vs CCE Vadodara [2008 (232) ELT 859 (Tri. Ahmd.) iv) The customer viz M/s BSNL have given certificate to the effect that they have paid the prices of the goods as per the final prices indicated against each item." 4. We note from the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) and observation made to the effect that the appellant has failed to furnish the relevant documents providing that payments have been received only in accordance with the revised invoices. In the absence of cogent evidence regarding the payments received by the party, principles of unjust enrichment are to be invoked. 5. As is seen form the above t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
