TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verification that the objection was raised on the admissibility of the notification and the appellant had paid the amount. Therefore, the amount deposited on account of audit objection certainly to be considered a deposit only and the question of unjust enrichment does not arise in this case. Denial of refund of amount paid in respect of clearance of goods to M/s.NAL, we find the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim by denying the said exemption notification. On perusal of the certificate issued by NAL, it is evident that it is duly signed by the Senior Controller of Administration/Sr. Deputy Secretary and M/s.NAL is directly under the administrative control of Department of Space. Therefore, NAL correctly falls under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under unjust enrichment clause. The order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Ld. Consultant submits that they have manufactured and supplied heat exchangers and oil coolers to M/s.BEML, Mysore and M/s.NAL, Bangalore at Nil rate under Exemption Notification No.10/97. He submits that they have correctly claimed the exemption benefit of Notification. For the goods cleared to M/s.NAL, he produced the copy of certificate dt. 8.2.2002, issued by the Senior Deputy Secretary, NAL and they are covered under condition No.8 as NAL is a public funded institution under the direct administrative control of the Department of Space. 3. Regarding bar of unjust enrichment of refund of ₹ 37,121/-, he s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that appellants have not produced any evidence that incidence of duty was not passed on to M/s.BEML. We find that there is no dispute on the fact that appellants have supplied the goods to BEML under the said notification and the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority have upheld the eligibility of exemption benefit and granted refund. We find that the appellants availed the exemption under the said notification and cleared the goods and it was only during audit verification that the objection was raised on the admissibility of the notification and the appellant had paid the amount. Therefore, the amount deposited on account of audit objection certainly to be considered a deposit only and the question of unjust enrichment does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
