TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst 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, that they had added the valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so 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 exchange are given as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise duty on these items. It is an admitted fact, that, there was an error while paying the duty initially by adding the value of 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 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find the order-in-original as well as order-in-appeal have rejected the refund claim on the ground that the value of the bought out 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 Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
