TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrespondences made by the appellant to the department that there was a specific request to sanction refund of the amount paid. It has to be noted that as early as 3.3.2006, PWD had written to Deputy Commissioner stating that they would not be paying the amount to the appellant and there was a delay in producing the certificate. The proper course for the appellant to follow was to file an appeal against the decision communicated to them by the Assistant Commissioner on 24.11.2005 stating that since they have not fulfilled the conditions under Notification No.108/95 they are not eligible for the refund. This was a decision communicated to the appellant, which could have been challenged and they did not do so. As early as 3.3.2006 PWD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WD indicated that value was inclusive of excise duty and sales tax. The consignee viz., PWD, Government of Karnataka was not aware of, nor they indicated in the purchase order that they would be eligible for the duty exemption benefit in terms of Notification No.108/95-CE dated 20.8.1995. The total amount of excise duty including education cess paid by the appellant was Rs.14,80,275/-. The buyer-cum-consignee namely PWD, Government of Karnataka released adhoc payment to the appellant towards the material but did not pay the excise duty portion on the ground that the project under World Bank loan assistance vide loan No. LN/4606-IN issued by project implementation unit, Karnataka State Highways implementation project and that PWD were eligib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eimbursed to the appellant. They also stated that there was delay on their part in producing the certificate. To this letter also department promptly replied on 23.3.2006 and it was stated that the certificate sent by them is of no relevance and if PWD did not want to pay the amount or did not pay the contractual amount to the customer, the Central Excise department is not concerned with the same and the certification that the items were required for project and the amount will not be reimbursed by the customer are of no relevance under the Central Excise Act. Thereafter in November 2006, the PWD informed that they would not pay the Central Excise duty to the appellant. Thereafter on 12.3.2007, a regular refund claim was filed by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he certificate. The proper course for the appellant to follow was to file an appeal against the decision communicated to them by the Assistant Commissioner on 24.11.2005 stating that since they have not fulfilled the conditions under Notification No.108/95 they are not eligible for the refund. This was a decision communicated to the appellant, which could have been challenged and they did not do so. As early as 3.3.2006 PWD made it clear that they would not be paying the amount. A request by the third party or a customer to the department requiring the department to reimburse the amount of duty paid cannot be considered as refund claim at all. At this stage also the appellant had time to file refund claim since the clearances were from June ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
