https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339132 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. en-us Fri, 27 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Nov 2017 16:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339132 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339132