Concessional excise duty benefit could not be withdrawn on the basis of an unauthorised later communication

A certificate issued by the authority named in Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., stating that the vehicle was capable of being driven by a medically disabled person, satisfied the notification condition for concessional excise duty. A later communication by a Section Officer could not override or cancel that certificate, because it was not shown to emanate from a higher competent authority or to rest on any valid basis for withdrawal of a concession already granted and relied upon. The excise authorities were therefore not entitled to disregard the earlier certified disability and deny the benefit. The concessional duty benefit remained available to the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the certificate issued by the Director in the Ministry under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. could be ignored on the basis of a subsequent communication by a Section Officer, and whether the appellant remained entitled to the concessional excise duty benefit.

Analysis: The certificate was issued by the authority contemplated by the notification and specifically certified that the vehicle was capable of being driven by the appellant, who had a medically certified disability. The later communication did not show that it was issued by a higher competent authority empowered to cancel the earlier certificate, nor did it disclose any basis for withdrawing a concession already granted on the strength of the certified disability. The notification condition stood satisfied by the certificate produced, and the excise authorities could not disbelieve or override it on the basis of an unauthorised subsequent communication, especially after the appellant had acted upon the concession.

Conclusion: The certificate could not be cancelled by the Section Officer, and the appellant was entitled to the concessional duty benefit.

---