Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Fiat India P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai ... on 8 February, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No.I Appeal No. E/219, 250/03 (Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. RJB/M-II/254-255/02 dated 17.7.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai ) For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President Honble Mr.K.K.Agarwal, Member (Technical) ====================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Fiat India P. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai II
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for the appellant Shri R.B. Tiwari, Jt. CDR for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President Honble Mr.K.K.Agarwal, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 8.2.2008 Date of decision: 8.2.2008 O R D E R No:..
Per: Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President The appellants herein had cleared motor vehicles on payment of duty at 32% ad valorem. These vehicles were subsequently registered for use as taxi. The claim for refund of excise duty paid on the vehicle was filed on the ground that the assessees were eligible to exemption laid down in notification 3/2001 CE dated 1.3.2001 as per Serial No. 43 of the Table thereto. The claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the model of the car shown in the invoice was not to be found on the RTO certificate, although the engine number and chasis number tallied. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication orders; hence these appeals.
2. We have heard both sides and perused the records. We find that once there is no dispute regarding the tallying of the engine number and chasis number, refund could not have been denied that the car model number was not shown on the RTO certificate. What is shown on the RTO certificate is L.M.V. Luxury Tourist Car and L.M.V. According to the department the car model nos. namely Sienna 5 Door Sedan and Uno EL Petrol should have been shown on the certificate instead.
3. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the appellants are entitled to refund and accordingly set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals. (Dictated in Court) K.K.Agarwal Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram Member (Technical) Vice President sr