9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 64/93-C.E. They also sought refund of 10% of total CVD at the time of importation. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the car was manufactured abroad and duty was paid for its clearance and the refund was due to the assessee respondents on the basis of the documents furnished by them for having registered as a taxi. The adjudicating authority denied exemption on the ground that notification being a conditional one its benefit can only be extended to manufacturers who fulfil the condition specified thereon. He further held that being an importer tourist transporter only and not a manufacturer, the claimant would not be in a position to fulfil the specified conditions. Against this order an appeal was filed and the appellate au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He states that the same notification has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 321 and the case of J.K. Synthetics - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 54 as to hold that the importer is treated as the manufacturer. He also relied on the observations of the Supreme Court judgment in Thermax Pvt. Ltd. - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 352 at page 360. He states that once the goods have been registered as a taxi by the importer himself the question of doctrine of unjust enrichment being made applicable does not arise. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. The Notification 64/93 envisages levy of duty at 40% as well as at 30%. The imposition of duty at 30% would be made only if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id case in favour of the respondent. 6. No doubt Smt. Reena Arya emphasizes the fact about unjust enrichment. The doctrine of unjust enrichment in respect of captive consumption has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Solar Pesticides - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 but that judgment in our view will not be applicable to the instant case because the goods have not been sold to any person. The goods are used by the importer himself as a taxi. The goods are not captively consumed and sold. We are therefore of the view under the peculiar circumstances available in the facts of the case, the dictum laid down in the Solar Pesticides case cannot be made applicable to this case. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeals of the department and uphold t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
