News Update

DRI nabs Dubai-bound pax with FC worth Rs 1.93 croresCX - Too late for Revenue to complain that there is non-compliance by Settlement Commission with mandatory provisions of law: High CourtI-T - Tax Recovery Officer cannot summarily assume powers under Indian Contract Act, 1872, to suo motu declare a transaction of sale to be void & without approaching civil court: HCI-T - Expenses incurred for purely business purposes not being incurred on employees, would not attract Fringe Benefit Tax: HCCX - General practice amongst masses to not consider trading as an 'exempted service' till amendment was made in CCR - assessee had no malafide intention to avail undue benefit: CESTATCJI impeachment - Opposition Parties finally do it; hands over Notice to Vice PresidentBRICS discusses constitution of Working Group on illicit financial flowsCBDT shifts DGHRD office to Jawaharlal Nehru StadiumCBIC clarifies that remnant fuels (HSD/LDO) (after ship breaking) are classifiable under Chapter 27 and free from import policy restrictionsI-T - Mere projection of profit statement found in loose sheets from taxpayer's premises, is no basis for levying penalty in his hands: ITATGoM on Transport recommends uniform road tax structureCX - Assessee taking credit on rejected goods, recyling same and paying duty on clearance alleging that credit has been availed irregularly is unsubstantiated no question of double duty : CESTATGovt seeks feedback to Draft Coastal Regulation ZoneI-T - Payments made to founder or relative of trust, if credited to trust's account immediately without taking any undue benefit from it, will not upset exemption benefit u/s 11: ITATFC to individually assess needs of each State: NK SinghCX Mere reiteration of order of penalty imposed by original authority, who had jurisdiction, by first appellate authority, who lacked jurisdiction, does not cause grievance to appellant at that stage: CESTATGoM on Transport recommends uniform road tax and national permits for buses and taxisJustice Loya death case - SC dismisses pleasChennai Customs nabs pax coming from Dubai with gold worth Rs 2.5 Cr + also seizes 7.5 kg of seahorses during vehicle checkGovt to give new award to certain ranks of Civil servantsVAT - Reimbursement received by dealer for supply of spare parts to its customers under warranty period, are not liable to VAT under Maharashtra VAT Act: HCIT - Where Revenue detects massive tax evasion through bogus bills, it cannot wash hands of it through mere additions: ITATIT - Failure to explain scientific method in determining the amount of performance bonus payable to employees can lead to its disallowance : ITATST - Demand of differential amount of service tax alleging that entire amount collected by PCO operator is subject to levy of service tax cannot sustain for period prior to 01.03.2011: CESTATIndia almost ready with Rs 600 Crore Chandrayaan-2Govt launches Study in India Portal for foreign studentsAfter issuance of SCN, write to noticees about availing window of Settlement Commission for early settlement of disputes - CBIC instructs fieldCBDT Diktat on Misconduct - But, Mr Prime Minister, Actual High-handedness lies in Revenue Target Fixation!
 
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