9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. E/1590 to 1602/2012; E/85588/2013, E/89732 to 89734/2013 E/87201, 87202 & 85587/2013, E/87203/2013, E/89874/2014 & E/85532 & 85533/2015 - A/86985-87008/16/EB - Dated:- 8-10-2015 - M. V. Ravindran, Member (J) And C J Mathew, Member (T) For the Appellant : Ms Padmavati Patil, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Ajay Kumar, Jt. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per C J Mathew This batch of 24 appeals have been filed by M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt Ltd against various orders-in-appeal of the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad. 2. These appeals pertain to the rejection of refund claims amounting to ₹ 80,62,195/- for the period from January 2011 to March 2014 relating to partial exemption allowed by notification no. 6/2006-CE dated 1 st March 2016. 3. The appellant is a manufacturer of motor vehicles under chapter heading 8703 3291 and 8703 2391 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Vehicles are cleared on payment of duty to dealers across the country and some of these are sold by dealers for use as 'taxis'. The Central Government extends the benefit of concessional rate of excise duty for motor cars, that are use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in Qazi Noorul H.H.H. Petrol Pump v. Dy. Director, E.S.I Corporation [2009 (240) ELT 481 (SC)] wherein it was held: 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that we should see the object and intention of the Statute. It is well settled that once the Statute, the literal Rule of Interpretation applies, and there is no need to go into the object and intention of the Statute (vide article entitled 'A Note on Interpretation of Statutes' by Markandey Katju, J., published in the Journal Section of AIR 2007 SC page 22). In the present case, Section 2 (14-AA) of the Act states that manufacturing process shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Factories Act, 1948. In the Factories Act, 1948, Section 2(k) of the Act includes pumping oil as a manufacturing process. 11. In our opinion, the only rule of interpretation which applies to the facts of the present case is the Literal Rule of Interpretation, which means that we should go simply by the wording of the Statute and nothing else and there is no scope for applying any other Rule of Interpretation. In our opinion, the language used in Section 2(k)(ii) of the Factories Act, 1948 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her period of three months as the said Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, may allow, from the date of clearance of the said motor vehicle from the factory of the manufacturer; (3) a copy of the document evidencing the payment of excise duty, as mentioned in paragraph (a) above; (4) where the manufacturer has collected an amount, as representing the duties of excise, in excess of the duties payable under this exemption from the buyer, an evidence to the effect that the said amount has been duly returned to the buyer; and (5) where the manufacturer has not collected an amount, as representing the duties of excise, in excess of the duties payable under this exemption from the buyer, a declaration by the manufacturer to that effect; (c) Within seven days of the receipt of the said claim for refund, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, after such verification, as may be necessary, shall determine the amount refundable to the manufacturer and shall intimate the same to the manufacturer. In case the credit taken by the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be literally interpreted. Concessional rate of duty is subject to 'registration for use solely as taxi' without any reference to the period of registration; it was, therefore, improper on the part of the lower authorities to insist upon a tenure that is not expressly stated there. We are further guided by the decision of this Tribunal in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise New Delhi [2000 (124) ELT 1175 (Tribunal)] which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2001 (127) ELT A 169 (SC)]. This decision has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Premier Association Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - II - 2015-TIOL-138-CESTAT-MUM. The relevant extract of the decision of the Tribunal in re Maruti Udyog Ltd. is : 9.1 We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. On a fair reasonable and plan reading of the condition No. (2) of the Notification 162/86-C.E., set out earlier, responsibility cast on the manufacturers/appellants herein is to produce Certificate from an officer authorised by the concerned State Transport Authority in this behalf within 3 months of the date of clearance of the saloon car by the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
