Cement exemption under Notification No. 04/2006-CE upheld for housing corporation supplies, with unjust enrichment review retained.

Cement supplied in bulk to a state housing corporation was held eligible for Notification No. 04/2006-CE because the bags carried the required price declaration and the goods were not excluded by the retail sale price regime. The tribunal followed its earlier ruling on identical supplies and distinguished the contrary precedent on different facts, so the exemption could not be denied merely because the buyer was a housing corporation. The direction to examine unjust enrichment before sanctioning refund was also upheld as a proper procedural safeguard, and the connected appeals were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cement cleared to Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 04/2006-CE on the footing that the buyer was an industrial or institutional consumer and that retail sale price declaration rules did not bar the exemption; (ii) Whether the direction to examine unjust enrichment before sanctioning refund was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether cement cleared to Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 04/2006-CE on the footing that the buyer was an industrial or institutional consumer and that retail sale price declaration rules did not bar the exemption.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the applicability of the notification to cement supplied in bulk to the housing corporation and on whether such clearance attracted the retail sale price requirement. The reasoning followed the earlier decision in Sagar Cements, where identical supplies to the same purchaser were held to remain within the notification benefit because the bags carried the required price declaration and the goods were not excluded from the relevant weight-and-measures regime. The contrary reliance on Rain Commodities was distinguished on its facts, since that matter involved a different factual setting and a different basis for denying the exemption.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 04/2006-CE was available and the Revenue's challenge on this issue failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the direction to examine unjust enrichment before sanctioning refund was sustainable.

Analysis: The adjudication order had not recorded findings on unjust enrichment, and the first appellate authority's direction required the lower authority to address that question before granting refund. That approach was treated as a correct procedural safeguard in the refund process.

Conclusion: The direction to consider unjust enrichment was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The common order affirmed the refund-related relief on the exemption issue while sustaining the safeguard relating to unjust enrichment, and all connected appeals were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where cement supplied to a specified purchaser remains subject to the applicable price-declaration requirement and the facts are identical to an earlier binding decision extending the notification benefit, the exemption cannot be denied merely because the purchaser is a housing corporation; refund sanction may also legitimately be made subject to examination of unjust enrichment.

---