2015 (6) TMI 742 - AT - Customs

Exemption in terms of Notification No.108/95-CE. - Refund claim - Funding by World Bank - Held that - Problem was being faced by the appellant at various projects and some of matters went in appeal before the Commissioner at other places and were decided in their favour. Revenue challenged the said decisions before the Tribunal. We find that Tribunal vide 2013 (4) TMI 707 - CESTAT NEW DELHI rejected the appeals filed by Revenue. Another decision in the appellant s own case is reported as Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. vs. C.C., Chennai - 2008 (10) TMI 92 - CESTAT - Chennai . - By following the same, we set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial on merits and limitation.

Analysis:
The appellant's project, funded by the World Bank, procured items claiming exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE. Due to a delay in funding, they were advised by DGFT to deposit duty benefits availed. Subsequently, they received the funded amount and filed a refund claim. The original authority denied the claim on merits and limitation. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) favored the assessee on limitation but rejected the claim on merits, stating the goods were not financed by the World Bank at clearance. The Tribunal had previously rejected Revenue's appeals in similar cases, citing precedents like Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. vs. C.C., Chennai. Following these decisions, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting relief to the appellant.