https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124281 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. en-us Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:58:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124281 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124281