https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48220 Notification No. 4/97-C.E. was interpreted as requiring registration of the vehicle for use solely as a taxi or ambulance within three months of clearance, or within such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner may allow. The time limit was treated as governing registration, not merely the production of the certificate. Because refund under Section 11B had to be claimed within six months, the practical outer limit for compliance could not go beyond that refund period. The analysis therefore states that the Assistant Commissioner had discretion to extend the registration period up to the refund limitation period, and a refund denial based on the assumed absence of that power was incorrect. en-us Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48220 Notification No. 4/97-C.E. was interpreted as requiring registration of the vehicle for use solely as a taxi or ambulance within three months of clearance, or within such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner may allow. The time limit was treated as governing registration, not merely the production of the certificate. Because refund under Section 11B had to be claimed within six months, the practical outer limit for compliance could not go beyond that refund period. The analysis therefore states that the Assistant Commissioner had discretion to extend the registration period up to the refund limitation period, and a refund denial based on the assumed absence of that power was incorrect. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48220