TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant is eligible for the exemption notification - appellant being handicapped person pursuing his refund for more than five years, therefore the adjudicating authority is directed to sanction the refund to the appellant alongwith interest - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/98/12 - A/85551/17/SMB - Dated:- 27-1-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) None for the Appellants Shri. S.V. Nair, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent Order The fact of the case is that the appellant had purchased a vehicle named Skoda Laura fitted with Automatic Transmission manufactured by M/s. Skoda Auto India Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad. The appellant purchased the said vehicle through one M/s. Pashankar Automotive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant filed this appeal. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant, however on perusal of appeal memo I find that following grounds were made by the appellant: (a) The motor vehicle namely Skoda Laura fitted with automatic transmission was cleared by M/s. Skoda vide their invoice No. 1377 dated 30-4-2010 on payment of excise duty at the normal rate of duty i.e. 22%. The said vehicle was purchased by the appellant, entire central excise duty element was borne by him. The appellant as per the requirement of the notification complied with the conditions by producing the necessary certificates from Ministry of Heavy Industries and also by giving an affidavit that he shall not disposed of the car for the period of five years after its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her submitted that once the element of duty has been passed on to the appellant, M/s. Skoda have no locus standi to claim refund claim, also the same is deniable in terms of principles of unjust enreachment therefore there is no need of no objection certificate. 3. On the other hand, Shri. S.V. Nair, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by Ld. A.R. and submissions made in the appeal memo by the appellant. 5. I find that refund claim was made in respect of duty borne by the appellant, which was paid by M/s. Skoda, in terms of Notification No. 6/2006-CE (Sr. 49) which is meant for Cars(for the transport of up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Skoda where under the excise duty @22% was paid. Thereafter for the same car the dealer M/s. Pashankar issued their invoice No. PAPL/2010/05/287 dated 8-5-2010, appellant submitted certificate of registration. In all these three documents description of the car alongwith chasis and engine number has been mentioned. 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 ₹ 15,24,656.00 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
