9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by World Bank and approved by Government of India and Government of Maharashtra vide agreement dated 5.8.2002. The appellant manufactured motor vehicle chassis which were cleared to the body builders and from the body builder's premises the goods were cleared to BEST claiming exemption of Notification No.108/95. The appellant had initially paid duty on the chassis cleared to the body builders and not claimed the benefit of Notification 108/95. For the period May 2005 to December 2005, the appellant cleared 179 numbers of motor vehicle chassis on payment of duty. The said chassis were subsequently sent to various body builders who in turn fabricated bodies and the buses so manufactured were supplied to BEST, Mumbai under the agreement. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been cleared by the appellant. The impugned order did not, however, deal with the issue of unjust enrichment as the refund claim was rejected on merits. 3. Learned counsel argued that the exemption certificate clearly mentions that the buses will be manufactured by the appellant at their Bhandara plant and the body building on these chassis will be carried out by the specified body builder. He argued that it was open to the appellant to clear the said chassis under Notification 214/86 to various body builders and claim nil rate of duty after the buses manufactured by the various body builders and clear the same under Notification 108/95. Learned counsel argued that even Notification 214/86 prescribes that the benefit of the same can be av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia, that the said goods are required for the execution of the said project and that the said project has duly been approved by the Government of India, and (ii) if the said project has been approved by the Government of India for implementation by the Government of a State or a Union Territory, a certificate from the executive head of the Project Implementing Authority and countersigned by the Principal Secretary or the Secretary (Finance), as the case may be, in the concerned State Government or the Union Territory, that the said goods are required for the execution of the said project, and that the said project has duly been approved by the Government of India for implementation by the concerned State Government." 5.1 The benefit has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of the said certificate, the benefit has to be extended to chassis as well. This view is further fortified by the fact that the appellant has been permitted to clear chassis, other than 179 chassis cleared during this period, after availing exemption under Notification 108/95. The issue regarding unjust enrichment has not been examined by the lower authorities. The doubt regarding correlation between the goods cleared and buses supplied to BEST has not been dealt by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. In view of above, the appeal is allowed so far as it relates to eligibility of notification to the clearance of 179 chassis cleared by the appellant. However, in respect of the issue of unjust enrichment and correlation, the matter is remande ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
