Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1022 - AT - Central ExciseUnjust enrichment - Refund claim - entitlement for exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28/08/1995 - respondents applied to the Competent Authority for required certificate but due to urgency of project, they have obtained duty paid materials and used the same in the project of NHAI - Held that - the respondent did execute a contract covered under the scope of Notification No. 108/95-CE. They are otherwise entitled for the said exemption. As per the finding in the impugned order that the refund was rejected only on the ground of the question of undue enrichment. Regarding the duty incidence, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given a categorical finding after perusal of the contracts and certificate issued by NHAI, that no duty has been collected by the respondent from NHAI. There is nothing in the present appeal to contradict the said factual finding as recorded in the impugned order. The contract is for a fixed amount and it has been categorically recorded in the impugned order that no excise duty incidence has been passed on by the respondent to NHAI. NHAI also categorically certified to that effect. - Decided against the Revenue
Issues:
1. Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE for a road project financed by the World Bank. 2. Rejection of refund claim on grounds of time bar and unjust enrichment. 3. Appeal by Revenue against rejection of refund claim. Analysis: 1. The case involved a Government of India Undertaking engaged in a road project financed by the World Bank, entitled to exemption under Notification No. 108/95-CE. The respondent obtained duty paid materials due to project urgency before obtaining the required certificate for exemption, leading to a refund claim rejection by the Jurisdictional officer. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection on the grounds of time bar but allowed the appeal on the question of unjust enrichment. The Revenue contended that the duty amount was collected by the respondent from NHAI, making their claim subject to unjust enrichment. However, the Commissioner found that no duty had been passed on to NHAI based on contract and NHAI certification. 3. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and facts, noted that the respondent was entitled to the exemption under the notification. The appeal by the Revenue lacked any contradiction to the factual findings that no excise duty had been collected from NHAI, as certified by NHAI. As the appeal did not present any new facts to counter the findings of the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).
|