Drinking water project exemption cannot be denied for certificate timing or name mismatch, with refund upheld on unjust enrichment findings.

Exemption for goods supplied to a drinking water project under Notification No. 6/02-C.E. could not be denied merely because the prescribed certificate was not in existence before clearance or was not issued in the supplier's name. The notification imposed no such conditions, and the certificate in the name of the project beneficiary was sufficient on the facts stated. Refund was also supportable because duty was paid due to urgent project requirements and the lower appellate authority found that the duty burden had not been passed on, defeating unjust enrichment. The appeal was therefore allowed with consequential refund.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned goods cleared for a drinking water project were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/02-C.E. dated 1-3-2002, and whether refund was liable to be granted when the conditions relating to prior submission of certificate and naming of the supplier were not found in the notification.

Analysis: The notification did not require the prescribed certificate to be in existence before clearance of the goods, nor did it stipulate that the certificate had to stand in the name of the supplier. The goods were supplied for a drinking water project, the relevant certificate existed in the name of the project beneficiary, duty had been paid because of urgent project requirements, and the lower appellate authority had recorded that the duty burden had not been reimbursed, thereby negating unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the grounds adopted below, and the appeal was liable to be allowed with consequential refund.

---