TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (7) TMI 141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st OIA 738/2001, dated 22-11-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The appellant, M/s. Karnataka State Agro Corn Products Ltd., has been set up by the Government of Karnataka. It is wholly owned by the State Government. It has been set up for the manufacture of energy foods. The entire shares of the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nergy foods to poor children free of cost. Subsequently, it was found that the appellants are not liable to excise duty. Therefore, they applied for refund. Initially a part of the amount was refunded and the balance was rejected on account of several factors. But the CEGAT passed a Final Order No. 1395/99, dated 15-6-99, according to which the appellant is entitled for refund for the period 1-3-8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accounting purposes money was collected. Under these circumstances only, the duty paid by the appellant was also collected. Since duty is not payable on the subject goods, the appellants are rightly entitled for the refund. As regards unjust enrichment, since the various departments, which procured the energy food under welfare scheme, distributed the food free of cost to the poor, the State Gover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty, which is not leviable, to the Central Government is also not under dispute. The only issue to be decided is whether there is unjust enrichment. The appellant is a State Government unit, wholly owned by it. They manufacture the energy food for the State Government welfare project wherein UNICEF is also involved. In order to see that the energy food reaches poor children, the energy food is pur....