9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asundaram, Vice-President and Shri K.K. Agarwal, Member (T) [Order per: K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)]. -1. Stay granted and appeals taken up for final hearing, with the consent of both sides. 2. M/s. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. (Fiat for short) is inter alia engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. One of the models of motor vehicles manufactured was Premier Padmini model motor cars. These Premier Padmini model motor cars were manufactured by Fiat on job work basis wherein M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd. (PAL for short) procured all raw materials and accessories and supplied to Fiat, who assembled the Premier Padmini model cars and cleared the same to the dealers of PAL on payment of duty a @ 40% ad valorem . Fiat raised invoices on PA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect that the said amount has been duly returned to the buyer; and..." 5. Fiat has been clearing motor vehicles to PAL, who in turn was selling the same to the taxi owners through their dealers and Fiat were filing refund claims in respect of differential duty paid by them by following the procedure: (a) PAL prepared refund claim and gave the refund application to Fiat for the signature of Fiat as applicants; (b) Along with the application the following documents were prepared and attached by PAL: (i) registration certificate from RTO as evidence for registration of vehicle as taxi; (ii) original triplicate copy of invoice under which said car was cleared; (c) After signing the refund applicant, the same was handed over to PA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... These false/bogus receipts were also obtained to facilitate Fiat to file the refund claims. It was alleged that Fiat were well aware of the fact that cheques were never handed over to the taxi owners by the respective dealers and they also knew about the bogus receipts obtained from the taxi owners and they notwithstanding the above facts submitted refund claims with the department along with these bogus documents i.e. photo copies of the cheques and receipts to get the refund claim sanctioned. Since documents on the basis of which the refund claims were sanctioned were forged, the entire refund claim filed by a purpose to mislead the department, indicate mala fide intention of Fiat and PAL and their dealers. 8. Fiat in reply denied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt to the buyer which in this case is PAL. It held that the requirement of refunding duty to the registered taxi owners was there under Notification 4/97 and it is for this period only that the revenue could look into as to whether the refund was actually passed on to the individual taxi owners or not. The matter was remanded for redetermination of the demand and imposition of penalties. 11. The matter was thereafter again adjudicated by the Commissioner wherein the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs.2,68,38,851/-along be with interest after adjusting Rs.75,18,967 already paid in cash by M/s. Fiat to M/s. PAL and imposed penalty of equal amount on Fiat and a penalty of Rs.30.00 lakhs on PAL and of varying amounts on the seven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t made by them directly to taxi owners from October 2001 onwards till date. At the time of personal hearing before the Commissioner of Central Excise on 12-3-2007, Fiat has subsequently requested the Commissioner of Central Excise to depute officers of Central Excise department to verify the payments made by Fiat directly to taxi owners of the differential amounts. 13. The Commissioner in his impugned order has chosen not to verify the above contentions, nor has made any reference to such refund made by them to the individual taxi owners and has in stead held that Fiat has not produced any evidence to show that they had now paid the differential duty to the taxi owners. On sanctioning by the department taxi refund in respect of Premier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xi owners and if the same is found to be correct the demand should be set aside. 14. The ld. D.R. however submits that the Commissioner has in para 33 of his order has clearly stated that Fiat has been unable to produce evidence to show that the amount of refund sanctioned has been returned back to the individual taxi owners. However, he agreed that the evidence now being produced appears to have been not looked into by the Commissioner. 15. We have considered the submissions. We find that the appellants have taken a positive plea that in addition to return of the amount to PAL, they have by contacting the Mumbai Taximen Union who confirmed the name of persons who had purchased the Premier Padmini model motor cars, the registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
