2002 (10) TMI 699

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the said goods. The said equipment was installed in the appellants' factory. According to them, it started giving some problems in 1996 and they got in touch with their foreign supplier, but deposed their technical person for inspection etc. It was found that grinding roll was damaged and has to be replaced by the foreign supplier under a mutually agreed warranty against manufacturing defects. On 16th January, 1997, the defective goods were despatched by their foreign supplier. As per the appellants, though the said goods were free replacement, the foreign supplier raised the invoice against 100% payment by mistake. Subsequently, on discussions, it was clarified that the goods sent by them were free replacement and the papers were accord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, that the foreign supplier sent the goods as free replacement, itself shows that the transaction was covered by warranty. The reasoning of the authorities is based upon the assumption and presumption and there is nothing on record to show that the goods were covered by warranty. As regards in the principle of natural justice, he submits that they had produced on record the Chartered Accountant's Certificate showing that the duty burden has not been passed on to their customer as examined from the records is such certificate should not be accepted by the authorities. He relies on the Tribunal's decision in the case of CC (Import) Mumbai v. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. reported in 2002 (149) E.L.T. 772 (T) = 2002 (50) RLT 973 (CEGAT-Mum.).....