C.H. RAMARAJU Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the purchaser of a motor vehicle (car) registered for use solely as a taxi. He had purchased it from a dealer viz. M/s. Sundaram Ford, Visakhapatnam for a sum of Rs. 7,94,405/ - under invoice dt. 21.6.2002. The manufacturer of the car was M/s. Ford India Ltd., Chengalpattu who supplied the vehicle to the dealer under invoice dt. 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 Government, by Notification No. 3/2001 -CE dt. 1.3.2001 as amended by Notification No. 6/2002 -CE dt. 1.3.2002 granted exemption from payment of SED on motor vehicles registered as "taxi" by the Regional Transport Authority. As he had paid duty (including SED) on the vehicle at the time of its purchase, he filed a claim with the department for refund of SED on the strength of the above exemption. This claim was rejected by the original authority and the order of that authority was upheld by the first appellate authority. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that none of the lower authorities has dealt with the refund claim on its merits. The original authority rejected the claim as it was not a refund claim filed by the manufacturer 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 -CE 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 -CE ibid.

(3.) The above notification, while providing for exemption from SED on motor vehicles registered as "taxi", laid down that the manufacturer of such a vehicle could file claim for refund of duty paid in excess of what was specified under the Notification, with the jurisdictional officer of Central Excise within 6 months from the date of payment of duty. The Notification also laid down the conditions for sanction of such a claim. The refund claim in question was not filed by the manufacturer of the car but by the ultimate buyer. Hence, in my considered view, the procedural requirements specified in the above Notification were not applicable to the subject claim for refund. The refund claim filed by the ultimate buyer (who is entitled to claim refund of duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act) would be governed by the provisions of Section 11B. In any case, the 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 standi to file it, that authority has got to re -adjudicate the claim on its merits. Accordingly, after setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities, I allow this appeal by way of remand. The original authority shall consider the refund claim afresh in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.