9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey also paid the appropriate customs duty thereon). They got the cars registered for use as taxis and filed two claims for refund of Rs. 1,91,685/- and Rs. 1,85,852/- respectively on account of 10% point of CVD in terms of the above mentioned Notification. Both the claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the notification is not applicable to imported cars and also that the appellants have not been able to prove that the burden of the amount claimed as refund, had not been passed to any other person. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the importers holding that conditions No. (i) and (iii) under the proviso to Notification No. 64/93 have not been satisfied; hence this appeal. 2. We have conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable thereon which is specified in the said Schedule as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 40 per cent ad-valorem. Provided that in a case where a saloon car after clearance has been registered for use solely as a taxi, the manufacturer of the said saloon car shall be entitled to a further exemption of duty of 10 percentage points subject to the following conditions, namely :- (i) the manufacturer at the time of clearance of such saloon car has paid excise duty calculated at the rate of 40% ad valorem. (ii) the manufacturer furnishes to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise a certificate from an officer authorised by the concerned State Transport Authority in this behalf to the effect that such saloon car has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of excise duty that he would have been called upon to pay in that event . Applying the ratio of the above judgment to the facts of the present case, this is exactly what has been done by the lower authorities by levying C.V. duty at the rate of 40% in terms of the notification. But it would be stretching the ratio of the Apex Court too far to hold that the importer is to be treated as a manufacturer for the purpose of Notification No. 64/93 which extends further concession of 10% only to manufacturers. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.), relied upon by the appellants herein is also distinguishable - that decision was rendered in a different co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
