9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. India Auto Ltd. (herein after referred to as Fiat) are the appellants. They are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. Various parts were supplied by M/s. Premier Auto Vehicles Ltd. (for short PAL) on job work basis and motor vehicles assembled and cleared on payment of duty. Fiat raised invoices on PAL for the job charges. PAL issued commercial invoice to the dealers for the sale price of the said cars. Procedure under notification 27/92 was followed; thus PAL was exempt from the provision of Rule 174 as they had given the authorization to Fiat and had undertaken to pay duty differential if any on the sale price sale being incorrect. 1.3 Sr. No. 195 of notification 4/97 exempted motor vehicles which after clearan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication to the appellants for signature. (b) After getting appellants signature on the refund application, the same was handed over to PAL for submitting to the excise authorities. (c) Along with the application, the following documents were attached and filed with Central Excise Dept by PAL. (i) registration certificate from RTO as evidence for registration of vehicle as taxi; (ii) original triplicate copy of invoice under which said car was cleared; (d) On written confirmation from excise authorities that the refund claim was in order, PAL intimated the concerned dealer to refund the amount to the customer an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. 172/2000 dt 14-6-2000 Oct to Dec 98 287821.00 8. 173/2000 dt 14/6/00 Jan 99 258127.00 9. 170/2000 dt 14-6-2000 July to Sept 98 358901.00 10. 140/2000 dt 14-6-2000 Nov 98 386755.00 11. 169/2000 dt 14-6-2000 April & May 98 247832.00 12. 168/2000 dt 12-6-2000 Nov 98 499319.00 13. 207/2000 dt 7-7-2000 Jan & Feb 99 477342.00 14. 176/2000 dt 13-6-2000 Dec 98 410414.00 15. 239/2000 dt 31-8-2000 Feb & March 99 408899.00 16. 237/2000 dt 31-8-2000 March 99 138723.00 17. 235/2000 dt 31-8-2000 Feb & March 99 320668.00 18. 229/2000 dt 4-8-2000 March to May 99 460954.00 19. 228/2000 dt 9-8-2000 April & May 99 163684.00 20. 238/2000 dt 31-8-2000 Nov 98 to Feb 99 342401.00 21. 240/2000 dt 31-8-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded over to the taxi owners by the respective dealers and they also knew about the bogus receipts obtained from the taxi owners. They, notwithstanding above facts, submitted the refund claims with the Department along with these bogus document i.e. photocopies of the cheques and receipts to get the refund claim sanctioned. And since the documents on the basis of which the refund claims were sanctioned, were forged and manipulated, the entire refund claims filed by M/s. FIL with a purpose to mislead the Department, indicate the mala fide intentions of M/s. FIL, M/s. PAL and their dealers and after finding that the refunded differential duty never reached the ultimate customer i.e. the taxi owner. It was thus held that the basic condition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacturer. The noticeable amendement, vide notification 5/98 dt 1-6-98 which eliminated the production of evidence of the excess amount having been refunded to the actual person in whose name the motor vehicle was registered as a Taxi and the requirement of only having made a 'return' to the buyer of the manufacturer cannot be ignored. 2.2 In the case before us, there is proof of "Return" of the excess amounts to the buyers of Fiat i.e. PAL. The material of production of photocopies of cheques made out in the name of the ultimate buyer i.e. Taxi owner registration holder and the subsequent enquiries of such amounts not being actually transferred/paid by the dealers down the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
