2005 (6) TMI 444

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- PMT. In respect of the first clearance, a mistake as to unit price was noted by the appellants who found that the relevant invoice had wrongly mentioned the unit price Rs. 1,300/- instead of Rs. 1,250/- which was the contract price and had paid duty on the higher price. When this mistake was intimated to the customer, they issued a debit note for the excess duty amount of Rs. 4,592/- and debited equivalent amount in their RG 23A Part II register. On the strength of this debit note, the appellants claimed refund of the said amount of Rs. 4,502/-. In respect of the second clearance, the customer found that the sulphuric acid supplied by the appellants did not conform to the purity of product ordered by them and accordingly they de-valued th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... show cause notice for rejecting the refund claims were rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) and that the department is not aggrieved by this decision of the appellate authority. It is his further contention that the ground on which the appellate authority rejected the refund claims is beyond the scope of the show cause notice inasmuch as unjust enrichment was not a ground raised in the notice. It is further submitted that the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Grasim Industries (supra) has not attained finality inasmuch as the Apex Court has admitted the appeal of M/s. Grasim Industries against the said decision. Ld. SDR points out that there is no stay of operation of the Larger Bench decision and hence that decision can still be follo....