2009 (9) TMI 432 - AT - Central Excise

Car-Exemption- the appellant received a vehicle Wagon R-AX on payment of concessional rate of duty of 16% as against the normal rate of 40% in terms of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000. car capable of use by physically handicapped person. Buyer producing certificate from Director in Ministry of Heavy Industries that car capable of being used by him. Certificate subsequently withdrawn by a letter issued by section officer of the ministry. Held that- withdrawal certificate was issued by incompetent authority and it was importer as it neither indicated that decision was taken by higher/competent authority nor grounds based on which disability earlier considered adequate warranted cancellation of earlier certificate. Condition of Notification complied with.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding concessional rate of duty for a vehicle under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E.
- Validity of certificate issued by Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises for concessional excise duty.
- Withdrawal of certificate by Section Officer and its impact on eligibility for refund.
- Competency of Section Officer to cancel certificate issued by Director in the Ministry.
- Compliance with conditions of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. for concessional rate of duty.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the concessional rate of duty for a vehicle received under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. The appellant received a vehicle at a reduced duty rate of 16% based on a certificate issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, certifying the vehicle's suitability for a physically handicapped person. However, a show cause notice was later issued, alleging withdrawal of the certificate, leading to a demand for differential duty payment.

2. The appellant argued that the certificate was valid as it was issued by a competent authority as required by the conditions of the notification. The appellant contended that the subsequent communication by a Section Officer withdrawing the certificate was invalid, as the Section Officer lacked the authority to cancel a certificate issued by a higher authority, the Director in the Ministry. The appellant emphasized that the certificate was crucial for availing the concessional rate of duty, and its withdrawal without proper justification was unjust.

3. The Tribunal examined the submissions and records, concluding that the certificate issued by the Director in the Ministry was valid and complied with the conditions of the notification. The Tribunal noted that the subsequent communication by the Section Officer lacked justification and was issued without proper authority. It was emphasized that the excise authority could not question the validity of the original certificate based on the Section Officer's letter. The Tribunal found that the appellant had acted in good faith based on the valid certificate and should not be penalized due to the subsequent invalid withdrawal of the certificate.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the appeal, providing the appellant with consequential relief as per the law. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and ensuring that decisions affecting duty rates are made by competent authorities in a justifiable manner. The judgment upheld the appellant's right to rely on valid certificates issued by competent authorities for availing concessional rates of duty under the relevant notification.