2008 (7) TMI 253 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants supplied pipes & tubes for a drinking water project on behalf of TISCO - necessary certificate is in name of TISCO exemption notification 6/02-C.E. neither makes any stipulation that the impugned certificates should be in existence prior to clearance of the goods nor stipulate that it should be in the name of the supplier exemption not deniable - supply was made on payment of duty and there is no allegation of unjust enrichment therefore, refund is allowed

Summary

Issues: Exemption under Notification No. 6/02-C.E. dated 1-3-2002 for supply of pipes and tubes for a drinking water project.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, involved a dispute regarding the exemption under Notification No. 6/02-C.E. dated 1-3-2002 for the supply of pipes and tubes for a drinking water project. The Appellants had provided the goods for the project on behalf of another company, and the authorities had denied the exemption due to the absence of a necessary certificate submitted before the clearance of the goods and not in the name of the Appellants. However, the Tribunal noted that the Notification did not require the certificates to be in existence before clearance or in the name of the supplier. The Appellants argued that they were acting on behalf of the company owning the goods until supply, and the material was urgently needed for the government project. The Tribunal considered the facts, wording of the Notification, and the non-reimbursement of duty by the project authorities to the Appellants, concluding that there was no unjust enrichment. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Appeal was allowed, with the direction for a refund to the Appellants.

In the detailed analysis, the Tribunal pointed out that the impugned Notification did not specify that the required certificates for exemption should be in existence prior to the clearance of the goods or in the name of the supplier. This interpretation was crucial in determining the eligibility for exemption in this case. The Appellants' argument that they were acting on behalf of the company owning the goods and that the supply was urgent for a government project played a significant role in the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal considered the circumstances, including the non-reimbursement of duty by the project authorities to the Appellants, as a factor indicating no unjust enrichment on the part of the Appellants. This consideration was essential in assessing the fairness and legality of granting the exemption and refund to the Appellants. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the Appeal was based on a comprehensive evaluation of the facts, the Notification's provisions, and the absence of unjust enrichment, leading to the direction for a refund to the Appellants.