2006 (1) TMI 24 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise Refund claim rejected on the ground of that cars were not registered as taxi within 90 days from the date of clearance from the factory

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding refund claim approval.
- Registration of vehicles within the prescribed time limit.
- Interpretation of Notification No. 3/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001.
- Compliance with conditions for refund of excise duty on motor vehicles.
- Violation of principles of natural justice in rejecting claims.

Analysis:
1. Appeal Against Commissioner (Appeals) Order: The Commissioner filed appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the refund claim of the Appellant. The Executive Commissioner did not accept the order and filed these appeals. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the late filing of the refund claim due to cars not being registered as taxis within the specified time limit.

2. Registration of Vehicles: The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the claims were rejected for non-registration as taxis within 90 days, despite the Department issuing a letter stating that the vehicles were registered within the required timeframe. This was deemed a violation of natural justice as the appellants were not given an opportunity to defend their claims.

3. Interpretation of Notification No. 3/2001: The Senior Advocate highlighted Notification No. 3/2001, which requires registration of motor vehicles within three months from the date of clearance from the factory. He presented a chart showing details of 11 refund claims, all of which had vehicles registered within the specified period. He argued for upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order based on this compliance.

4. Compliance with Conditions for Refund: The Notification specifies conditions for refund of excise duty on motor vehicles, including timely payment of duties, filing refund claims within six months, and obtaining a certificate of registration as a taxi within the stipulated period. The Advocate's chart demonstrated compliance with these conditions in all cases, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeals.

5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The Member (Judicial) found that the cars were registered within the required time, and the delay was condoned by the Assistant Commissioner. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, emphasizing that the conditions of Notification No. 3/2001 were met in all cases. Consequently, the appeals by the Revenue were rejected, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld, with Cross Objections disposed of accordingly.