2019 (11) TMI 55 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of Excise duty - benefit of N/N. 6/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 - rejection on the ground that the impugned notification is limited to supplies for the initial setting up of water treatment plants , that only by subsequent clarification of Central Board of Excise Customs in circular no. 354/34/2008-TRU dated 14th March 2008 was exemption extended also for replacement of pipes that the goods had been supplied to the project contractor. HELD THAT - The pipes had been deployed in connection with providing water supply. It is also noted that the appellant initially paid duty and the present proceedings relates to claim for refund of that duty. The prescribed certificates have been issued by a responsible government authority and incorporates details of the project. While the wording of the certificate could be amenable to different interpretation, it is apparent that the objective of the notification leaves no room for ambiguity and the furnished certificates should have sufficed as compliance. The first appellate authority has noted lack of absence of certain documentation. In order that lack be remedied, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original authority with a direction to expedite the further proceedings in relation to the refund claim only on the bar of unjust enrichment and, in the face of our finding on the sufficiency of compliance of the conditions, allow the refund to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute regarding the applicability of exemption notification for the supply of pipes for a specific project and the rejection of refund claim by the original authority based on the interpretation of the notification and lack of evidence.

Analysis:

1. The appeal involved a dispute related to the supply of pipes for a project and the subsequent claim for refund of duty paid. The appellant, M/s Pratibha Industries, supplied pipes for a specific project related to the shifting of water mains. The duty liability of ?11,43,691/- was discharged initially, but later, the appellant sought a refund upon realizing that an exemption notification could have been availed for such projects.

2. The original authority rejected the refund claim stating that the exemption notification was limited to supplies for setting up water treatment plants and not for the specific project in question. The first appellate authority also upheld this decision, mentioning that the exemption did not extend to pipes used beyond carrying water to treatment plants and storage facilities. The lack of certain documentation, including copies of credit notes and related invoices, led to the rejection of the claim.

3. During the proceedings, none appeared for the appellant, and the tribunal heard the Learned Authorized Representative. The tribunal found that the rejection of the refund claim was based on the inadequacy of evidence and lack of support for the prescribed certificates before the original authority and the first appellate authority.

4. Upon careful examination, the tribunal observed that the pipes supplied by the appellant were indeed used in connection with providing water supply, and the appellant had initially paid the duty, seeking a refund later. The certificates issued by a government authority contained project details, and although subject to interpretation, the objective of the notification was clear. The tribunal concluded that the certificates should have been sufficient for compliance. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original authority to expedite the proceedings related to the refund claim, focusing on the bar of unjust enrichment.

5. The tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent that, based on the finding of sufficient compliance with the conditions, the refund should be granted to the appellant. The tribunal pronounced the order on 16/10/2019, ending the proceedings in favor of the appellant.