https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153781 The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order demanding duty payment and rejecting the refund claim. The appellant, engaged in fabricating parts for public utility projects, was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 74/93 C.E. The duty paid beyond one year was not confirmed as Central Excise duty, and the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply as the goods were used for government projects, absorbing the duty burden. The refund claim was deemed timely, and the appellant was granted a refund of Rs. 7,59,952/-. en-us Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:19:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153781 The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order demanding duty payment and rejecting the refund claim. The appellant, engaged in fabricating parts for public utility projects, was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 74/93 C.E. The duty paid beyond one year was not confirmed as Central Excise duty, and the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply as the goods were used for government projects, absorbing the duty burden. The refund claim was deemed timely, and the appellant was granted a refund of Rs. 7,59,952/-. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153781