Exemption refund for a handicapped person's car cannot be denied by adding a manufacturer no objection requirement.

Refund under Notification No. 6/2006-CE was available for a car purchased for use by a physically handicapped person where the claimant produced the manufacturer's invoice, dealer's invoice, registration certificate, medical and departmental certificates, and an affidavit undertaking not to transfer the vehicle for five years. The record showed that excise duty formed part of the price paid and that the duty burden was borne by the claimant. Refund could not be refused on the basis that the claimant had not separately proved incidence of duty or because a no objection certificate from the manufacturer was not obtained, as the notification did not impose such a condition. A requirement not contained in the notification could not be added to defeat the refund claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of excise duty under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1-3-2006 in respect of a car purchased for use by a physically handicapped person, and whether refund could be denied on the grounds that duty incidence was not borne by the appellant or that a no objection certificate from the manufacturer was required.

Analysis: The car was cleared by the manufacturer on payment of excise duty at the normal rate and the same vehicle, identifiable by the chassis and engine numbers, was subsequently purchased by the appellant through the dealer. The documentary record, including the manufacturer's invoice, the dealer's invoice and the registration certificate, established that the duty element formed part of the price paid by the appellant and that the burden of duty had been passed on to him. The appellant also produced the requisite medical and departmental certificates and an affidavit undertaking not to dispose of the vehicle for five years, thereby satisfying the conditions of the exemption notification. The notification did not prescribe any requirement of a no objection certificate from the manufacturer, and such a condition could not be imported to defeat the claim.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the refund under the exemption notification, and the rejection of the claim on the grounds of absence of proof of duty incidence and absence of a no objection certificate was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the conditions of an exemption notification are satisfied and the evidence shows that the duty burden was borne by the claimant, refund cannot be denied by adding a requirement not contained in the notification.

---