2013 (4) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appellant. Shri Sunil Kumar and Ms. Priyadeep, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER The respondent are manufacturers of Optical Fibre Cable and PDF cable (Telecommunication Grade) falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 85444990-99 and 90011000 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which during the period of dispute had been supplied by them to M/s. BSNL. The respondent du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e invoices. The respondent filed refund claims in respect of the excess duty paid by them. These refund claims were rejected by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide orders-in-original each dated 28-12-2010 on the ground of unjust enrichment. On appeals to Commissioner (Appeals), these orders of the Assistant Commissioner were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as the evidence in support of their claim that incidence of duty whose refund is claimed has been borne by the respondent and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri Sunil Kumar and Ms. Priyadeep, Advocates, the learned Counsels for the respondent, defended the impugned order and pleaded that though during the period of dispute in respect of supplies of Optical Fibre Cab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is claim of the respondent is not correct, that no evidence in this regard has been produced by the department, and that when the department does not dispute that the payment from BSNL was received only after the finalisation of the provisional assessment and the duty reimbursement was on the basis of duty finally assessed and not on the basis of the duty originally paid, the department cannot all....