XEROX INDIA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in all the four appeals is identical and as such, common order is being passed. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of photocopiers which are being sold by them to their customers. Thereafter, they entered into an agreement with their customers which is called a Full Service Maintenance Agreement (hereinafter referred to as 'FSMA'). In terms of the said agreement, they charged 29 paise per copy and as and when any part of the photocopy develops a defect, the appellant would change the same free of cost.

(2.) DURING the relevant period, the appellant was changing the old and used photoreceptor drums, toners, etc. The old photoreceptor drums were being brought back to the factory and were reconditioned. Such reconditioned drums were being sent to their customers. It is not necessary that the same old and used photoreceptor drums would be reconditioned and sent to the same party. This was a continuous process.

(3.) THE above facts are not disputed by the Revenue. However, the refund claims stand rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment by the original adjudicating authority as well as by the appellate authority. Hence the present appeals.