2004 (1) TMI 410 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to validity of order-in-appeal rejecting refund claim by handicapped appellant who purchased a car with duty paid by manufacturer.

Analysis:
In this case, the appellant, a handicapped person, challenged the validity of the order-in-appeal that rejected her refund claim for a car purchased from the manufacturer. The manufacturer had initially charged the full price, including duty, from the appellant. Subsequently, the manufacturer filed a refund claim as they were entitled to a concessional duty rate under a specific notification. However, this claim was rejected on the basis that the duty incidence was passed on to the appellant, the purchaser of the car.

The appellant's refund claim was dismissed on the grounds that she lacked locus standi to file the claim, as only the manufacturer was deemed eligible to do so. However, it was highlighted that Section 11B grants the right to the buyer to file a refund claim if they have borne the duty. The appellant, as the buyer of the car who had paid the duty to the manufacturer, was entitled to claim the refund. Despite possessing a certificate from the Ministry of Heavy Industry confirming that the vehicle was meant for her due to her handicap, her claim was not entertained by the authorities below.

The Tribunal ruled that the appellant, as the purchaser who had borne the duty, was indeed entitled to a refund under Section 11B of the Act. Since there was no evidence that she had further sold the vehicle and passed on the duty incidence, the order-in-appeal rejecting her claim was deemed legally unsustainable and was set aside. The appellant was held entitled to the refund amount, which would be calculated by the Department based on the invoice through which she purchased the vehicle. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was allowed with appropriate relief as per the law.