9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants' appeal against rejection of refund claim was allowed partly and rejected partly. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellants cleared consignment of C DOT RSU exchange equipment to M/s. BSNL. The appellants by mistake raised the invoice on higher amount of assessable value and paid duty on such higher assessable value. On realizing their mistake, that, tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) also kept quiet on the part of unjust enrichment and decided the issue on the same ground as is in the Order-in-Original. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard both sides, perused the record. I find that the appellants had contracted with BSNL (Govt. organization) for supplying of a telephone exchange for an amount of Rs. 21,67,772/-. The details of the items for this telephone exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f these items into the assessable value. Subsequently on realizing the mistake the appellants revised the invoice which showed the correct amount of duty payable by the appellants. Since this amount is less than the amount which the appellants have paid, the appellants filed the refund claim. At the time of personal hearing before the Adjudicating Authority and before the Commissioner (Appeals) th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut items has to be added to the assessable value. This ground was not there in the show cause notice. In the absence of any such allegation in the show cause notice it is not proper to reject the claim on the ground on which the appellants were not put on notice. The Order-in-Original and the order-in-appeals are clearly traversing beyond the show cause notice. 5. In view of the above findings th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
