2000 (11) TMI 853

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enefit of Notification 64/93-C.E. They also sought refund of 10% of total CVD at the time of importation. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the car was manufactured abroad and duty was paid for its clearance and the refund was due to the assessee respondents on the basis of the documents furnished by them for having registered as a taxi. The adjudicating authority denied exemption on the ground that notification being a conditional one its benefit can only be extended to manufacturers who fulfil the condition specified thereon. He further held that being an importer tourist transporter only and not a manufacturer, the claimant would not be in a position to fulfil the specified conditions. Against this order an appeal was filed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. He states that the same notification has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 321 and the case of J.K. Synthetics - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 54 as to hold that the importer is treated as the manufacturer. He also relied on the observations of the Supreme Court judgment in Thermax Pvt. Ltd. - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 352 at page 360. He states that once the goods have been registered as a taxi by the importer himself the question of doctrine of unjust enrichment being made applicable does not arise. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. The Notification 64/93 envisages levy of duty at 40% as well as at 30%. The imposition o....