2005 (12) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r-in-Appeal dated 28-1-2004 wherein the appellants' appeal against 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.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n unjust enrichment. On an appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) also 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 deta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 filed the refund claim. At the time o....