9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (6) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY]. Further, as regards the availability of refund claim of additional Excise duty paid on the HSD, in case of exemption under Notification No.108/95, no distinction has been made for additional Excise duty on HSD in terms of Section 133 of the Finance Act, 1999. The respondents are entitled to the benefit of refund (including on Additional Excise duty) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/269 & 270/2009-EX[SM] - A/70717-70718/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 27-3-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri D.K. Deb, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Appellant None, for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The Revenue is in appeal challenging the order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ountant Certificate. Thus, the respondent is required to satisfy the bar of unjust enrichment. 4. The respondents are absent, in spite of notice. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, I find that the case of the respondents is that even though IOCL is not entitled for the refund claim, the ultimate user (respondents) have been using it for United Nations project and as such, were not debarred to take benefit under Notification No.108/95-CE(NT) dated 28/08/1995. The respondent - PNC Construction Co. Ltd., was allotted a contract work under Major Maintenance Works, under Uttar Pradesh State Roads Project for Package No.UPSRP/RMC/42 from Shikohabad to Etah and that contract was awarded to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty Certificate, Evidence of Purchase, mode of payment of Excise duty, etc. 7. It is the contention of the respondents that even though IOCL is not entitled for the refund claim, the ultimate user have been using it for United Nations Project or World Bank Project and was not debarred to take benefit under Notification No.108/95-CE(NT) dated 28/08/1995 as amended. Further, reliance was placed on the ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Jai Bhagwati Impex Pvt. Ltd. Versus union of India reported at 2009 (13) S.T.R. 24 (Bombay) and of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, Versus Spentex Industries Ltd. reported at 2007 (218) E.L.T. 371 (Tri. -Mumbai). 8. The ld. Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o exempted. Further Section 133 of the Finance Act, 1999 reads as follows:- (3). The provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules made thereunder, including those relating to refunds and exemptions from duties, shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the levy and collection of the additional duty of Excise leviable under the said Section 133 of the Finance Act, 1999, in respect of any goods as they apply in relation to the levy and collection of the duties of Excise on such goods, under that Act or the Rules, as the case may be. 10. Thus, in case of exemption under Notification No.108/95, no distinction has been made for additional Excise duty on HSD in terms of Section 133 of the Finance Act, 1999. 11. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
