https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782332 Refund of excise duty on cement supplied to a World Bank funded road project was treated as allowable despite the certificate under proviso (C) to Notification No. 108/95-CE being produced after clearance, because the supplies were genuinely for an eligible project and the procedural timing requirement was not read so strictly as to defeat the substantive exemption. The unjust enrichment objection was also rejected because the buyer confirmed that no CENVAT credit was taken and the duty was neither reimbursed nor passed on, so the refund was held to reflect duty borne by the manufacturer alone. The appellate and original orders rejecting refund were set aside. en-us Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:24:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782332 Refund of excise duty on cement supplied to a World Bank funded road project was treated as allowable despite the certificate under proviso (C) to Notification No. 108/95-CE being produced after clearance, because the supplies were genuinely for an eligible project and the procedural timing requirement was not read so strictly as to defeat the substantive exemption. The unjust enrichment objection was also rejected because the buyer confirmed that no CENVAT credit was taken and the duty was neither reimbursed nor passed on, so the refund was held to reflect duty borne by the manufacturer alone. The appellate and original orders rejecting refund were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782332