Cce Vs. Bharti Telecom Ltd.

Cce vs Bharti Telecom Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 09, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29544

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/29544
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: K Usha, a T V.K.
Decided On: Dec 09, 2002
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Bharti Telecom Ltd.

Excerpt

1. in this appeal at the instance of the revenue the challenge is against the order passed by the commissioner (appeals) dated 27.3.2002.the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of electronic telephones falling under chapter 85 of central excise tariff act, 1985. during the period from march 1994 to july 1994 they had cleared/sold telephone sets to various govt. agencies like dot. contending that the prices finally approved by the govt. agencies were less than the prices at which the appellants had sold the goods at the factory gate, an application for refund of rs. 3,41,304.47 was made. the adjudicating authority rejected their claim. it was held that the assessee had not filed price list in part-ii as required prior to 1.4.94 and it has not been brought to the notice of the department that the price was provisional. it was also held that for the period after 1.4.94 the assessee has not given the appropriate certificate as provided under the rules. commissioner (appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. it is the above order that is under challenge before us.2. the respondent has no case that it has followed the procedure prescribed under rule 9b. but the contention raised is that non-compliance with the procedure should be condoned and the refund claim should be granted.3. we find merit in the contention raised by the revenue. the assessee had, at no stage, intimated that department about the provisional nature of the price, it has not followed the procedure prescribed under rule 9b. it has no case that the application for refund was made within a period of six months. under these circumstances, according to us, the assessee is not entitled to the refund as allowed by the commissioner (appeals).

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal at the instance of the Revenue the challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.3.2002.

The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Electronic Telephones falling under Chapter 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period from March 1994 to July 1994 they had cleared/sold telephone sets to various Govt. agencies like DOT. Contending that the prices finally approved by the Govt. agencies were less than the prices at which the appellants had sold the goods at the factory gate, an application for refund of Rs. 3,41,304.47 was made. The adjudicating authority rejected their claim. It was held that the assessee had not filed Price List in Part-II as required prior to 1.4.94 and it has not been brought to the notice of the Department that the price was provisional. It was also held that for the period after 1.4.94 the assessee has not given the appropriate certificate as provided under the Rules. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is the above order that is under challenge before us.

2. The respondent has no case that it has followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 9B. But the contention raised is that non-compliance with the procedure should be condoned and the refund claim should be granted.

3. We find merit in the contention raised by the Revenue. The assessee had, at no stage, intimated that Department about the provisional nature of the price, It has not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 9B. It has no case that the application for refund was made within a period of six months. Under these circumstances, according to us, the assessee is not entitled to the refund as allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Bharti Telecom Ltd. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge K Usha, a T V.K.