9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006 of Commissioner (Appeals), Raipur. The respondents are a Government of India Undertaking engaged in the execution of roads projects. They have been awarded 4 lane expansion work of National Highway No. 2 in Uttar Pradesh by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The project is financed by World Bank under a loan agreement. The respondent were entitled for exemption under Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been used in the project of NHAI. The contract is for a fixed amount which included all levies and duties. It is the case of the Revenue that the duty amount has been collected by the respondent from NHAI and as such their claim is hit by bar of unjust enrichment. It was contended that at the time of clearance of goods the required certificate could not be produced by the respondent. 3. Non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt 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. Considering that the appeal by Revenue does not contain any assertion of fact to counter the above finding in the impugned order, I find no merit in the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly rejected. (O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
