2017 (2) TMI 832 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal orders refund under Notification No. 6/2006-CE for physically handicapped vehicle purchase

Dr. Sadan Kumar Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad

Dr. Sadan Kumar Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad - 2017 (350) E.L.T. 117 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Refund claim under Notification No. 6/2006-CE for a vehicle purchased by a physically handicapped person.Analysis:The appellant purchased a Skoda Laura vehicle with Automatic Transmission, claiming exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE for physically handicapped persons. The appellant submitted medical certificates proving his physical handicap. However, the refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner(Appeals) for various reasons, including lack of evidence of the car being cleared at the normal rate of duty, passing of excise duty burden to the appellant, and absence of a no objection certificate from the manufacturer.The appellant argued that the vehicle was indeed cleared at the normal rate of duty, and the excise duty burden was borne by him, as evidenced by the invoices from M/s. Skoda and the dealer M/s. Pashankar. The appellant also contended that the requirement of a no objection certificate from the manufacturer was not applicable as the duty had been passed on to him. The appellant cited Circular No. 640/31/2002-CX to support his case.The Tribunal noted that the appellant met the conditions of Notification No. 6/2006-CE by being a physically handicapped person and submitting the necessary certificates and affidavit. The Tribunal found that the duty paid by M/s. Skoda was indeed passed on to the appellant, as evidenced by the invoices and registration documents. There was no requirement for a no objection certificate from the manufacturer, and the duty refund could not be claimed by M/s. Skoda once it had been passed on to the appellant.Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the adjudicating authority to sanction the refund to the appellant along with interest within three months. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's eligibility for the exemption notification and the need for timely refund processing due to the appellant's physical handicap.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's right to the refund under Notification No. 6/2006-CE, emphasizing compliance with the conditions and the passing of the excise duty burden to the appellant for the vehicle purchased as a physically handicapped person.