9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate from an officer authorised by the concerned State Transport Authority in this behalf within three months of the date of clearance of the saloon car by the manufacturer after payment of duty to the effect that each such saloon car has been registered for use solely as a taxi. 2.2 Initally, the appellants were clearing the said cars on payment of normal duty and later on claiming refund of duty evidencing the registration of the vehicle as a taxi. Refund claims were filed within the limitation period of Section 11-B and the documents were filed in time. 2.3 The department, at the field level, directed that benefit of the said notification has to be claimed at the time of clearance of the vehicle itself. The appellants fell in line with the procedure settled mutually by the departmental officers and the appellants. In fulfilment of the conditions of the notification and in accordance with the settled of procedure, the appellants submitted the necessary proof of registration of the vehicle as taxi. Whenever such a proof was not submitted within the prescribed time-limit of three months, the appellants paid the duty on such vehicles of their own accord. 2.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forma enclosed) from the State Transport Authority within the period stipulated under the Notification or under the extended period as allowed by the Assistant Collector in this regard." 3.2 This procedure was strictly followed. The vehicles were cleared on concessional rate of duty only after receipt of taxi permits from concerned dealers in the names of individual customers. Department never required the appellants to file a copy of taxi permits with the former and there was no requirement to file the same according to the settled procedure. 3.3 A confirmation of the above procedure and taxi permits being the relevant document for initial satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner regarding the saloon car to be required for use as taxi in terms of condition No. (1) of the notification is clearly brought out in the Assistant Commissioner's letter dated 16-1-1992, as stated in the additional submissions: (At page 15 of the Paper Book) "As required under Notification No. 162/86 dated 1-3-1986, the vehicle to be cleared as taxi has to be identified as taxi at the time of clearance itself. Since you have decided to obtain taxi permit and purchase orders for taxi itself, this p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a declaration of the assessee that it is to be used solely for the purposes of taxies. The Assistant Collector is required to satisfy himself, on such material as may be in his possession, that the saloon cars declared to be cleared at the lower rate of duty for the purpose of sole use as a taxi is actually required for that purpose. Condition No (i) therefore, is applicable only in cases where lower rate of duty is initially claimed in terms of the said notification. Condition No. (i) to my mind is not really relevant in cases where higher rate of duty is paid at the time of clearance of the cars but a refund is later claimed on production of certificates as mentioned in condition No (ii) " 4.1 As against the above, ld. adjudicating authority has drawn an inference from the observation of the Tribunal to the effect that condition No. (1) is not really relevant in cases where higher rate of duty is paid at the time of clearance by holding that this observation implies that condition No. (1) becomes relevant when the concessional rate is paid at the time of clearance. He has, therefore, held that "the satisfaction of the A.C.C.E. as stipulated in condition No. (1) is not final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said that the initial concessional rate extended at the time of clearance has become final. Ld. Advocate has submitted that it is not disputed that the necessary registration Certificates of the saloon cars, cleared at lower rate, for their use solely as taxis have also been furnished within the prescribed time. In this connection, he draws attention to the record made by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order as follows : "For all these vehicles, documents as contemplated by the Notification No.162/86 have already been submitted by Maruti with the department. This position was agreed to by the learned Commissioner after verifying this aspect with the Assistant Commissioner. (For the sake of convenience these documents are referred to as first time documents). " 6.2 After having submitted the said certificates of registration once, ld. Advocate urges that there was no cause for the appellants and, not warranted on the part of the department to call upon the appellants, to satisfy that the vehicles are still plying as taxis. There is no such stipulation, submits the ld. Advocate, in the Notification. If some of the customers, after having registered their saloon car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the goods." 7.1 Ld. Advocate Shri N.K. Bajpai for the Revenue, on the other hand, has urged that object and purpose of Notification 162/86-C.E. is to give concessional rate of duty to saloon cars which are used solely for taxis. On verification of the Registration Certificates submitted by the appellants for fulfilment of condition (2) of the notification, it was found by the department that the vehicles, registered as taxis remained taxi not even for a day, on the same day it was converted into a private car, some of the registration certificates were found to be infictitious names since the persons at the concerned address given in the certificates were not found. Some of the vehicles were registered as light motor vehicles (for carriage of goods) and not as taxis (for carriage of passengers). If the certificates, as presented, are merely to be accepted as such and the matter allowed to rest there, the object of the notification will not be achieved. It will be positively defeated. 7.2 He further urges that the notification, in setting down the two conditions repeats and emphasises that the saloon cars are "for use solely as taxis" (emphasis supplied by Shri Bajpa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfied that the continuing obligation are not being carried out then it would be fully open to the authority to ask the person who have availed of the benefit of exemption to pay the duty payable in respect of the equipments which have been imported without payment of Customs duty. Needless to mention the Government has granted exemption from payment of Customs duty with the sole object that 40% of all outdoor patients and entire indoor patients of the low income group whose income is less than Rs.500/- p.m. would be able to receive free treatment in the Institute. That objective must be achieved at any cost, and the very authority who have granted such certificate of exemption would ensure that the obligation imposed on the persons availing of the exemption notification are being duly carried out and on being satisfied that the said obligations have not been discharged they can enforce realisation of the Customs duty from them." 8.1 In his rejoinder, ld. Advocate submits that liability of the appellants was to produce registration certificate for use of vehicles as taxis. It is neither the duty of the appellants nor possible for them to ensure that the vehicles so registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as a taxi, to demand duty from the manufacturer/appellants. 9.4 Question before us is not whether a duty liability on a vehicle cleared under Notification 162/86 would continue if the vehicle is found to be not in use as a taxi but the question is whether the appellants would be liable to discharge that liability, after they have submitted the requisite certificates. We are clear in our mind that no such duty liability would fall on the appellants after they have submitted the requisite genuine certificates mentioned in condition (2). Reliance placed by Revenue on the Apex Court's judgement in Mediwell (supra) for imposing continuing duty liability on the appellants is incorrect. There is a world of difference in the wording of notification 64/88-Cus. involved in that case and the Notification 162/86-C.E. involved herein, as rightly pointed. There is no liability on the appellants under this notification to ensure continued use of the vehicles as taxis, unlike the liability on the importers under Notification 64/88-Cus., because the importers under that notification have got the benefit as, among other things, they are required to give free medical aid to patients of low ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
