2011 (5) TMI 233 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 - Held that except prescribing further period of three months for registration the Notification does not alter the relief intended to be granted by condition No.51 of the notification in question - Once satisfied, about registration by the date as has been averred by the Learned Counsel there may not be difficulty to grant refund subject to satisfaction of genuineness and verification of documents stated above - Appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Refund denial under Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 due to registration timing for vehicles cleared as taxis.

Analysis:
The appellant's grievance revolves around the denial of duty refund for vehicles cleared under specific conditions of Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 despite being registered within the extended period allowed by the notification. The dispute arises from the interpretation of the registration timeline requirements set forth in the notification.

The appellant's counsel argues that the vehicles in question were registered as taxis within the extended period permitted by the notification. Refund eligibility, according to the counsel, hinges on registration within three months of clearance or within a further three-month extension with the necessary permissions. Citing a Bombay High Court judgment, the counsel emphasizes that the registration certificate for refund can be obtained beyond the initial three months, as long as the registration occurs within the stipulated timelines.

On the contrary, the Revenue's representative contends that refund eligibility is contingent upon meeting the notification's conditions, emphasizing that compliance is not merely procedural but substantial. Reference is made to a Supreme Court judgment to support the argument regarding the significance of fulfilling the notification's requirements for availing benefits.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal observes that the notification's amendment extending the registration period does not alter the essence of the relief intended by the original condition. The Tribunal interprets that the registration deadline is crucial, while the certificate's production within three months is not a strict requirement. Following the Bombay High Court's precedent, the Tribunal concludes that if taxi registration occurs within the extended three-month period, the appellant should not be denied the refund unless prohibited by law. The appellant is directed to provide evidence to substantiate the registration date for the refund claim, subject to verification by the authorities.

In a separate appeal (No.E/2764/05), similar to the one discussed above, the Tribunal issues a similar order, directing the authorities to verify the documents and make a decision accordingly. Both appeals are allowed based on the outlined considerations, emphasizing the importance of genuine registration and document verification for refund eligibility under the notification.