9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared the transmission tower for HVDC, East-South Inter Connector-II (Talcher-ii) Transmission project at nil rate of duty under Notification No.108/95-CE dt 28.8.1995. The condition of the Notification was that at the time of clearance, the appellant is required to produce the certificate to the effect that the project, for which the goods are being used, is funded by certain International Organization including World Bank. ii) In this case the appellant provided necessary project authority certificate and excuse duty exemption certificate against which goods were cleared free of duty. iii) However, initially it was not certain that the World Bank would fund this project; therefore, it was accorded deemed export status with the proviso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me/unjust enrichment exact amount of refund admissible etc.. Accordingly, Adjudicating Authority issued show cause notices to the appellant for rejection and rejected their claim vide Order in Original No.16/07-08 dtd 21.11.2007. viii) Against the OIO No.16/07-08 dt 21.11.2007 the appellant made an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeal of the appellant and sustained OIO passed by the Adjudicating Authority. ix) Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. With above background of facts, we have heard both sides represented by the Ld Counsels, Shri Anand Nainavati for the Appellant and Shri Alok Srivastava for the Revenue. 4. The Ld Counsel for the appellant based on the appeal and the written submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cash equivalent of the duty of customs forgone by the Department as deemed export benefits. This payment was required by the Department and made by the appellants in anticipation of delay of financial assistance from World Bank. Ultimately, when the World Bank assistance came through, the appellants wanted to get back their money. As regards the party who imported the materials required for the projects, they continued to enjoy exemption all throughout, i.e. both prior to and subsequent to World Bank assistance. In this scenario, the cash payment made by the appellants was rightly to be treated as a deposit and claim for its refund was rightly to be entertained without reference to the time-bar provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
