2017 (8) TMI 891

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as not made sales to the United Nations project, therefore respondents should not be allowed to avail the benefit of Notification No.108/95-CE(NT) dated 28/08/1995, when they claim that they have supplied the HSD for the United Nations project. 3. The ld. D. R. relies on the grounds of appeal and states that the respondents are buying HSD from M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred as 'IOCL' for short), and IOCL have not at all made supply to United Nations project. Accordingly, the respondent is not entitled to the refund claim, which has been erroneously granted to the buyer by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is further urged by ld. D. R. that the additional duty of Excise under the Finance Act is not exempted by Notifica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Engineer, World Bank Projects (Roads) UPPWD, Lucknow. The respondent - M/s PNC Construction Co. Ltd. submitted self attested photocopy of Project Authority Certificate No.CEWBPWD/SRP/RMC-42/1301 dated 20/01/2006 for 1250 KL HSD issued by Chief Engineer (WB Project) UPPWD, Lucknow countersigned by Principal Secretary/Secretary (PWD) U. P. Government. Accordingly, the respondents claimed that they are entitled for the benefit of Notification No.108/95-CE(NT) dated 28/08/1995 as amended on purchases of HSD on payment of Central Excise duty thereon from IOCL, Mathura. The respondent has submitted all the relevant documents in support of the claim for exemption. 6. Similarly, respondent - M/s NCC-PNC (JV), was allotted a contract of work for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the concerned State Authorities was submitted by IOCL, Mathura in original, in the office of the Adjudicating Authority. Further, as regards the unjust enrichment, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have observed that the respondents have submitted affidavit from the Managing Director, as well as certificate from the Chartered Accountant to the effect that the incidence of duty paid by them have not been passed on to any other person. Further, the respondents have shown the amount of outstanding as refund claim receivable from Excise Department in their balance-sheets. Further, no contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue. Accordingly, it has been held that the bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted in the facts of the....