TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate, for the Appellant. Shri M.M. Mathkar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of switch-gear and other products falling under Chapter 85 of CETA, 1985. There are two appeals on similar issue and therefore both are taken together for disposal. 2. In first case, the appellant had cleared the spares along with 11 KV switchgears of Rs. 6,70,675/-. In the second case, the appellants had cleared the insulation valued at Rs. 3,16,275.42. 3. In the first case, the appellants subsequently noticed after issue of invoice that the actual value of spares agreed to at the time of entering into contract was only Rs. 1 lakh whereas while preparing invoice, there was a clerical error and invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 898 (Tri Del.) (d) Rajasthan Electronics Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2006 (200) E.L.T. 324 (Tri-Del). (e) Peacock Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 1075 (Tri-Del.) (f) Alstom Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 511 (Tri-Del.). 6. He pointed out that the judgment in case of Grasim Industries was rendered wherein the full amount had been paid by the buyer and subsequently credit note was issued for the differential amount and refund claim was made. Since the full amount has been charged and received, and subsequently credit note was issued, it was held that unjust enrichment is attracted and refund claim is not admissible. He drew attention to the letter issued by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cs v. C.C.E., Vadodara I II - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 289 (Tri-Mumbai) and in case of Grasim Industries (Chemical Divn.) v. C.C.E., Bhopal - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 694 (Tri-LB), are applicable. 7. I find that from the records of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate show clearly that there was a clerical error while preparing invoice and making payment of Central Excise duty to the department. It is also quite clear that the invoiced amount in excess was never received by the appellant and accordingly the duty amount claimed as refund had also not been passed on to the buyer at any stage of transaction. Lower authorities have simply rejected the refund claim only on the ground that credit note has been issued. Further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
