9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee. - Appeal No. E/692/05 - Mum - - - Dated:- 10-12-2014 - M V Ravindran and P K Jain, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Sushant Murthy, Adv For the Respondent : Shri V. K. Agarwal, Addl. Comm. (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: M V Ravindran: This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 30/2004 dated 29.11.2004. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that during the period between May 1992 to September 1992, the appellant cleared 1785 no. of cars as taxis availing the benefit of Notification 162/86-CE dated 01.03.1986 which granted concessional rate of duty subject to following the conditions. It is on record that the appellant have followed the said conditions. Subsequently, it was noted by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made at length by both sides and perused the records. 6. The issue to be decided in this case is whether the appellant is to be fastened with the duty liability on the vehicles which was deregistered as from taxis and registered as private vehicle; which was initially cleared by the appellant by availing the benefit of Notification 162/86-CE. It is undisputed that while clearing the vehicles from the factory premises, the appellant had adhered to the condition laid down in such Notification. 7. In our considered view, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. (supra). We reproduce the relevant paras:- 9.2 It is not disputed that such certificates have been produced by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch 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 g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
