DR. SARVJEET KAUR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the validity of the impugned order -in -appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected her refund claim holding it to be not maintainable.

(2.) I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the appellant who is a handicapped person, purchased Wagon -R -AX Model fitted with automatic transmission, manufactured by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. The manufacturer charged full price including full duty, of the car from the appellant. However, thereafter, the manufacturer filed the refund claim as they were entitled to concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification 6/2000 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -2000. But their claim was rejected on the ground that they had passed on the incidence of duty to the present appellant/ the purchaser of the car.

(3.) When the present appellant filed the refund claim, the same has been disposed of on the ground that it is not maintainable as she has no locus standi to file the same and that the refund claim could be filed only by the manufacturer, M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., as is evident from the bare perusal of the impugned order. But strangely enough, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not bothered to have a glance at the provisions of Section 11B where a right has been given to the buyer to file refund claim where she/he had borne the duty. The appellant is admittedly buyer of a car and duty has been paid by her to the manufacturer. The Ministry of Heavy Industry even has issued a Certificate to her that the vehicle sold to her was meant for her being a handicapped. But still her claim has not even been entertained by the authorities below and the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the view that the claim is not maintainable. The argument of the learned JDR that at the time of clearance of the vehicle, the manufacturer did not obtain the certificate from the Ministry that the vehicle was meant for the appellant and for that reason, the appellant is not entitled to claim refund cannot be accepted being wholly misconceived. The certificate has been issued by the Department of Heavy Industry in terms of the above said Notification in favour of the appellant.