2005 (4) TMI 454 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Dispute over refund claims disallowed by Commissioner (Appeals) under Notification No. 6/2002 for motor cars of Honda City brand under Heading 87.03 of Central Excise Tariff Act.

In this appeal, the appellants challenged the correctness of the order-in-appeal disallowing their refund claims related to the manufacture of motor cars falling under Heading 87.03. The appellants filed three refund claims totaling Rs. 2,27,039/- under Notification No. 6/2002, which specified a duty rate of 16% ad valorem for motor vehicles of Heading No. 87.03 used exclusively as taxis after clearance. The General Manager (Finance) representing the appellant company argued for the refund, claiming compliance with the conditions of the notification. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants failed to meet the conditions, particularly regarding the submission of original invoices to demonstrate non-collection of duty from purchasers or refund of collected duty equivalent to the exemption amount. Despite the appellants' assertion of submitting invoice copies with the refund claim, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not receive them, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The Asstt. Manager's admission of producing only three invoices further supported the rejection, emphasizing the appellants' failure to fulfill all conditions stipulated in the notification.

As per the Tribunal's analysis, the failure to provide original invoices as required by the notification led to the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the impugned order. The appellants' inability to meet the specified conditions, including the submission of original invoices, resulted in the rejection of their refund claim under Notification No. 6/2002. Despite the appellants' arguments and partial submission of invoices, the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, emphasizing the necessity to fulfill all conditions outlined in the notification for claiming the refund. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal of the appellants.