Refund of excise duty on exempt supplies turned on proof that the purchaser also paid duty, requiring factual verification.

Refund of central excise duty on exempt supplies depended on verification of whether the purchaser had also discharged duty on the same pumps. The Tribunal noted that exemption under Notification No. 108/95 required the prescribed project certificate, and the record showed the supplier had paid duty without claiming exemption. However, the evidence did not conclusively establish the purchaser's duty payment, which was necessary to determine whether the goods had suffered duty twice. The matter was remanded to the original authority for factual verification, and the refund was to be allowed if the purchaser's payment was proved.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's claim for refund of central excise duty paid on supply of exempt goods could be decided on the existing record or required remand for verification of whether the purchaser had also discharged the duty liability.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 108/95 was available subject to production of the requisite project certificate, and the record indicated that the appellant had paid duty without claiming the exemption. The Tribunal noted the appellant's contention that the buyer had also paid duty on the same supply, which, if established, would mean the goods suffered duty twice and the appellant's payment would be refundable. However, the record before the Tribunal did not conclusively establish that the purchaser had in fact discharged the duty liability in respect of the pumps supplied by the appellant.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the original authority for factual verification, and if the purchaser's duty payment was established, the refund claim was to be granted.

---