9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the Assistant Commissioner, by which the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claims of various amounts and ordered recovery of the irregular credit of the duty availed by the applicants together with interest and imposed penalties of various amounts. 3. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 4. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicles falling under Chapter Heading No. 8703.00 of the CETA, 1985. 5. I find that the refund claims filed by the applicants have been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of non fulfilment of the condition of the Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1-3-2002 or Notification No. 6/2006 dated 1-3-2006, as the case may be, viz. the applicants have not availed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise within a period of six months from the date of payment of duty on clearance of Motor Vehicle from the factory. (v) The manufacturer has to provide intimation that the amount of refund of duty claimed has been credited by the manufacturer in his Account Current within six months from the date of payment of duty on Motor Vehicle. (vi) The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise within seven days of the receipt of the said claim for refund should verify the claim and determine the amount of refund. In case, there is any discrepancy, it should be intimated to the manufacturer within seven days of filing of the refund claim. The above conditions can be classified into substantive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a period of six months. However, in Appeal No. E/1185/08, credit was not availed within six months from the date of payment of duty. 7. I find that the refund of duty under subject Notifications is a beneficiary provision. It is well settled law that any beneficiary provision should be interpreted liberally. 8. In the case of Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.), the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the distinction is to be made between a procedural condition of a technical nature and a substantive condition. Non-observance of the former is condonable, while that of the latter is not condonable as it is likely to facilitate commission of fraud and introduce administr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
