9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdictional Assistant Commissioner vide his letter dt. 13.8.2003 informed that the certificate issued by the project authority is not in the name of the appellant whereas the same is in the name of M/s. Mediline Equipment and Computer Systems India Ltd. Accordingly the appellant have cleared the goods on payment of duty. Subsequent to the clearance of the goods the appellant obtained revised certificate which is in the name of the appellant. Thereafter they filed a refund claim in respect of duty paid at the time of clearance of such goods. The refund claim was rejected by the original authority on the ground that the appellant have not claimed Notification No. 108/95 at the time of clearance and they have not proved that the incidence of du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on either of payment of duty or reimbursement from the project authority. He submits that since the duty was paid at the time of clearance it was shown on the invoice however the project authority has not paid the duty amount to the appellant, therefore the incidence of duty was not passed on. On query from the Bench he fairly concedes that the documentary evidences were not submitted before the lower authority. However he produce the Chartered Accountant certificate at the time of hearing which certifies that the duty paid by them was not passed on to any other person. 3. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Supdt. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. The discrepancy raised by the Assistant Commissioner is rectified and revised certificate was submitted wherein the appellant name is correctly mentioned. In this fact the appellant was very much entitled for the exemption notification and the duty paid by them is legally refundable. As regard unjust enrichment it is an admitted fact that no documentary evidences were submitted by the appellant before the lower authority. However it appears from the nature of supplies and the certificate issued by the project authority that duty is not payable on the consignment. Therefore there is no question of reimbursement of the duty paid by the appellant, however in the absence of any documentary evidence it cannot be concluded that the incidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
