2004 (10) TMI 194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d since they did not challenge the assessment orders, could not claim the refund of the duty. He has relied upon the ratio of the law laid down in the case of S. Kumars Ltd. v. CCE, Indore, 2002 (141) E.L.T. 146; Hindustan Wires Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-II, 2003 (151) E.L.T. 679; and Traco Cable Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin, 2004 (172) E.L.T. 33. He has also relied upon the Ministry's Circular bearing No. 354/81/2000/TRU, dated 30-6-2000 under which the respondents were required to ask for the provisional assessment before the clearance of the goods, which they did not do. 3. Secondly, that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to the case of the respondents. He has contended that under this doctrine also, the respondents are not entitled....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the letters on the record. The respondents gave the quantity discount at the time of sale of their goods at the depot to their dealers and this was permissible under the law. They were not required to ask for the provisional assessment in terms of para 9 of the Ministry's letter dated 30-6-2000, referred to by the learned SDR, as the quantity discount was given by them at the time of very sale of the goods to the buyers. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed that the provisional assessment would be required only where the assessees claims that the discount of any description for a transaction was not readily known, but would be known only subsequently as for example - a year end discount. He has also, in my view, rightly held tha....