2018 (6) TMI 630

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp; As per the facts on record the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of PSC pipes for use in water supply scheme. The said water pipes to water treatment plants for drinking purpose are eligible for exemption for payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. As per one of the conditions attached to the said notification, a certificate issued by the District Collector in which the plant is located, is required to be produced to the Dy. Commissioner /Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise. 4.  During the period 17.05.2007 to 25.06.2008, the respondent cleared their goods on payment of duty, without availing the exemption in terms of the said notification. In as much as the notification requires them....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; As regards the Revenue's objection for not having the exemption certificate from the District Collector, at the time of clearance of the goods, we find notification nowhere requires that such certificate should be available with the assessee at the time of clearance itself. Otherwise also we find that there are umpteen number of decisions laying down that subsequent production of certificate, which is in the hands of the other public authority, would relate back to the clearances and as such if the condition of production of certificate is satisfied subsequent to the clearance, the benefit has to be extended. Reference in this regard is made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Dynaspede ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... because a detailed representation was not submitted, the letter written by an assessee protesting against inclusion of cost of polythene packing in the assessable value have to be treated as a protest letter. As such, we find no merits in the Revenue's stand of the refund claim being barred by limitation. 9.  As regards unjust enrichment angle, the appellate authority has discussed the same in detail and after examining the agreements entered into by the respondents with their customers, he has concluded that the rate collected deemed to be inclusive of all the taxes that the contractor has to pay for performance of the contract. In such a scenario, it could not be said that the respondent has charged and collected separately t....