News Update

Call drops - Problem is mostly indoors, says DoTACES fails again; CBEC feels compelled to extend ST Return filing date to April 30PM reviews performance of key infrastructure sectorsCX/CUS/ST - To prefer an appeal before Tribunal, appellant needs to deposit 10% of amount of duty/penalty irrespective of amounts equivalent to 7.5% deposited by them before Commr.(A): LBFM clarifies Union Govt has no plan to levy income tax on agri incomeST - If contention of department is accepted that appellant cannot be treated as service provider then payment made should not be treated as that of service tax but as reversal of CENVAT credit availed - Appeals allowed: CESTATSwachh Bharat Bug Finally Catches Up With CBDTCBDT clarifies rent from letting out of space with amenities in SEZ to be treated as business incomeGujarat goes for massive bureaucratic reshuffle - 45 IAS officers transferredHigh Seas Sales in GST RegimeExpenditure tax - Composite charges collected by hotel can be quantified only upon conclusion of stay of guests: HCCus Appellants were bonafide transferee of DEPB scrip with no involvement in the forgery or fraud before DGFT no penalty imposable ROM allowed: CESTATST Maintenance of software cannot be taxed under 'Management, maintenance or repair service' prior to 01.06.2007: CESTATPension Regulator makes it online for retirement advisersCBI nabs several Plant Quarantine officials + CHAs & Shipping Agents in corruption casee-PRAN card launched for Atal Pension YojanaSitharaman to inaugurate Spices Farmers Producer CompaniesCyber Crime - INTERPOL detects 9000 C2 servers; websites infected with malware codeRental income from space equipped with ameniteis in SEZ to be treated as business incomeCBDT prescribes method for valuation of FMV of assets owned by Trusts / InstitutionsGovt eases PF rules to allow withdrawal for house purchaseIf Govt grants waiver of loan to farmers, it may cost 2% of GDP: Arvind SubramanianCX - Exemption - Sec 11C Notification - Court cannot direct Government to grant exemption - No violation of Article 14: SCGST Network to provide standard software for small tradersClearance of Gift and Personal Use parcels imported through Courier modeST - Tribunal ordering appellant to pay further sum is bereft of any rationale as substantial part of demand stood deposited: HCI-T - Special limitation imposed on EOU for claiming deductions, by way of insertion of Sec 80A(5) and Fourth proviso to Sec 10B(1), is not violative of Constitution of India: HCCX - Activity of assembling various computer components into working system not manufacture: CESTATMinto Road Govt Press to be 'reborn' at cost of Rs 339 Crore
 
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