Refund on exempt project fuel supplies includes additional excise duty, and unjust enrichment fails on supporting evidence.

Refund under Notification No. 108/95-CE(NT) was available for HSD used in approved development projects where the project authority certificates and supporting records established compliance with the notification. The benefit was not denied merely because the immediate seller did not directly supply to the project, so long as the ultimate user satisfied the exemption conditions. The notification was treated as extending to the additional excise duty component as well, and the refund principles were applied to that levy. The objection of unjust enrichment failed because affidavits, Chartered Accountant certificates, and balance-sheet entries supported the claim and no contrary evidence was produced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were entitled to refund under Notification No. 108/95-CE(NT) dated 28/08/1995 in respect of HSD supplied for approved development projects, including the additional excise duty component, and whether the bar of unjust enrichment was attracted.

Analysis: The respondents established that the HSD was used for projects covered by the notification and produced the relevant project authority certificates and supporting records. The fact that the immediate seller was not itself directly supplying to the project did not defeat the benefit when the ultimate user satisfied the conditions of the exemption. The notification was treated as extending to the additional duty of excise as well, and Section 133 of the Finance Act, 1999 was relied upon to apply refund and exemption principles to that levy. On unjust enrichment, affidavits, Chartered Accountant certificates, and balance-sheet entries were accepted, and no contrary evidence was produced by Revenue.

Conclusion: The respondents were held entitled to refund, including on the additional excise duty component, and the objection based on unjust enrichment was rejected.

---