TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (7) TMI 290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....auto rickshaw" are meant for carrying passengers and classified under T.I. 34(1) of the erstwhile Tariff. Notification No. 59/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978 had granted duty concession to auto rickshaws subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions of the said Notification was that an officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector is satisfied that such auto rickshaw is intended to be used solely on hire for transport of persons and the manufacturer furnishes to the Assistant Collector a certificate from an officer authorised by the State Transport Authority within three months of date of clearances of auto rickshaws to the effect that each such auto rickshaw stands registered for use solely on hire for transport of persons. This Notific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said order of Collector (Appeals) dated 20-11-1981 the appellants filed claims before the Assistant Collector on 28-11-1981 for sanctioning of the two refund claims allowed by the Collector (Appeals) as per the order dated 20-11-1981. The Assistant Collector, however, by order dated 13-12-1982 informed the appellants that they had failed to comply with the conditions laid down in Notification No. 59/78 inasmuch as the appellants had not furnished necessary certificates from State Transport authorities within the time limit of three months of clearance nor had they sought extension of time limit. Against the said order of the Assistant Collector the appellants filed appeal before the Collector (Appeals), Bombay on 17-4-1983 contending inter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsons. Since this condition had not been satisfied, the Assistant Collector had rightly rejected the claim for refund, though, the Collector (Appeals) had by his earlier order dated 23-11-1981 directed the Assistant Collector to consider the refund application. 6. In the grounds of appeal the appellants have contended that the Assistant Collector had gone beyond his authority in rejecting the refund application which had been allowed by Collector (Appeals) by his order dated 20-11-1981. They submitted that the Department had themselves admitted that the appellants had submitted the certificate required under Notification No. 59/78, though they were admittedly submitted late. This did not disentitle the appellants from claiming refund ....