News Update

CX Provisions of erstwhile Rule 57CC are not same as Rule 6(6) of CCR as former dealt with 'products' while latter deals with excisable 'goods': CESTATE-sealing to become mandatory for exporters from 15 December 2017Treading GST Path XXXVII - GST on HotelsGST Council Meeting's decisions A deferred reactionIncome tax - No Assessee can escape penalty in garb of technicality, if he splits his income receipts and defers same in two subsequent years: HCST - When a person takes part in an activity with reference to his expertise, he is no more part of general public - workshops organized by appellant taxable under Convention service: CESTATCX Since the respondents are merely loan licensee they cannot be treated as manufacturer no registration can be granted Revenue appeal allowed: CESTATRevenue Secretary urges Industry & traders to pass on benefits of lower GST rates to consumersGST - Sushil Modi further sensitises Infosys; EDIT facility for returns to be activated soonGovt sets up Second National Judicial Pay CommissionImpact of Moody's rating upgrade - NHAI projects become less riskyIT infra missing at many Customs stations - CBEC Chairperson asks for speeding up installation of netwrok equipmentsIncome Tax seizes cash to tune of Rs 11 Crore from NSE brokerAustralians support same-sex marriage in national surveyDigital economy to the fore again (See 'TII EDIT')Renewable Energy - Challenge is research in storage technologyICAO Audit finds safety system in placeI-T - Interest received towards late payment following award passed by District Court is taxable income: HCPM reviews performance of key infra projectsCX Blinds are in nature of curtains and cannot be said to become immovable properties when they are mounted on wall: CESTATGST Administration facing acute manpower shortage at Group 'A' level; About 1900 posts remain vacant against over 5800 posts in CBECJD(U) election symbol - EC verdict out; Nitish faction defeats Sharad Yadav splinter groupSEBI bans Swarnabhumi Agritech India & its Directors for four yearsGST - MRP - additional stickers allowed upto Dec 31, 2017CBDT invites comments of stakeholders for conversion of Indian branches of foreign banks to Indian subsidiary companyMoody's upgrade India's credit rating to Baa2CBDT issues transfer order of 7 DC/ACITs
 
CX - Car for Physically handicapped persons - Notification 6/2006 does not require production of NoC from car manufacturer about claiming refund: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 16, 2017: THE appellant had purchased a vehicle manufactured by M/s. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Aurangabad through one M/s. Pashankar Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Wakad, Pune on 30.05.2010 which was said to have been initially cleared from factory premises of M/s. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Aurangabad.

M/s. Skoda paid excise duty and issued excise invoice dated 30.04.2010 wherein duty payment particulars are mentioned. The appellant applied for the refund of excise duty amounting to Rs.1,97,635.00 claiming that he was entitled for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE (which prescribes duty @4%).

Alongwith refund claim, appellant submitted medical certificate dated 10.06.2010 issued by B.J. Medical College of Sasoon General Hospital, Pune wherein in it was certified that appellant is 55% paralysis (PPRP. Pmt) and the certificate No. 12(13)/2010-AEI dated 22.10.2010 issued by the Director of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, New Delhi.

The refund claim was denied and which order was upheld by the Commissioner (A).

The reasons for rejection being -

(a) There is no evidence that car was cleared at normal rate of duty.

(b) The car was purchased by the appellant from the dealer.

(c) The excise duty burden was passed to the appellant.

(d) No objection certificate from the manufacturer, in case duty is refunded to the appellant.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the CESTAT.

After considering the submissions made, the Bench observed -

+ As per condition of the notification, only requirement is that the person who buys car should be physically handicapped person, from the medical certificate and also it is admitted fact that there is no dispute that appellant is physically handicapped person as he is 55% paralysis pmt.

+ The other condition is that the certificate should be issued by the Government of India, Department of Heavy Industries, the appellant have submitted this certificate which is not under dispute.

+ The condition of notification is buyer of the car is to give the affidavit that he shall not dispose of the car for five years from the date of purchase of the same. This affidavit also been submitted by the appellant and all these documents are not under dispute.

+ As regard the reason for rejection in the impugned order that whether duty was paid on the car and the same was borne by the appellant, has not been established, I observed that appellant have submitted the bill of M/s. Skoda where under the excise duty @ 22% was paid. Thereafter, for the same car the dealer M/s. Pashankar issued their invoice dated 8-5-2010.

+ With these facts, it is established that the car which was cleared by M/s. Skoda from the factory on the payment of duty @ 22% has been purchased by the appellant through dealer M/s. Pashankar, therefore, by any stretch of imagination there cannot be any doubt that duty paid vehicle cleared by the M/s. Skoda has been purchased by the appellant.

+ It is also observed that M/s. Skoda sold the motor vehicle at Rs.15,24,656.00 to M/s. Pashankar who in turn sold the same car to the appellant at Rs.18,57,265.00 which clearly shows that duty paid by M/s. Skoda was passed on to the appellant and the burden of duty was borne by the appellant.

+ As regard the requirement of no objection certificate from the vehicle manufacturer raised by the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that there is no such condition for production of such certification from the vehicle manufacturer, as per exemption notification No.6/2006-CE.

+ Moreover, once the excise duty paid by M/s. Skoda has been passed on to the appellant, M/s Skoda, under any circumstances, cannot claim refund and the same will not be admissible to M/s Skoda, therefore, asking for no objection certificate is absolutely unwarranted.

Conclusion:

The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

The adjudicating authority was directed to sanction the refund to the appellant alongwith interest within a period of three months.

(See 2017-TIOL-465-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS