2005 (7) TMI 232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... had purchased it from a dealer viz. M/s. Sundaram Ford, Visakhapatnam for a sum of Rs. 7,94,405/- under invoice dated 21-6-2002. The manufacturer of the car was M/s. Ford India Ltd., Chengalpattu who supplied the vehicle to the dealer under invoice dated 25-3-2002. The manufacturer paid BED of Rs. 81,123/- and equal amount of SED on the vehicle with assessable value of Rs. 6,82,093/-. The Central .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er of the vehicle within the period of 6 months from the date of payment of duty in terms of condition No. 51 of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. ibid. The appellate authority rejected it on the sole ground of time-bar after holding that the claim was filed beyond the period prescribed under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. ibid. 3. The above notification, while providing for exemption from SED on motor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he claim cannot be rejected on the ground that it was not filed by the manufacturer of the car inasmuch as, under Section 11B, a buyer also is entitled to claim refund of duty paid in excess, provided that he shows that the claim is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment created under Section 11B. As the original authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the claimant had no locus sta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X