By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, DEC 27, 2017: THE appellant Mercedes Benz cleared motor vehicle on payment of duty. Later on, the said vehicle was registered as Taxi, therefore, under Notification No. 12/2012-CE, the appellant was entitled to refund of excise duty paid by them. Appellant filed refund claim of excise duty paid by them. However, the said claim was rejected on the ground that as time limit prescribed under Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17.3.2012 is six months from the date of payment of duty and the refund claim had been filed beyond six months from the payment of duty, therefore, refund application is not maintainable.

The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund, apparently, by relying upon the decision in Skoda India Pvt. Ltd. 2010-TIOL-79-CESTAT-MUM.

Revenue is in appeal before the CESTAT against this order and places reliance on the decision in Mahindra and Mahindra 2007-TIOL-391-CESTAT-MUM.

[It seems that in the impugned CESTAT order being reported there is an inadvertent misplacement of the cited decisions inasmuch as in case of Skoda India , it is held that the benefit of notification cannot be denied if the assessee has fulfilled the substantive conditions and failed to follow the procedural conditions; that beneficiary provision should be interpreted liberally whereas in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra) it is held that filing of refund claim within 6 months is a substantive requirement and if benefit of notification is being claimed then the condition prescribed therein has to be complied with even if they are only directory in nature.]

Be that as it may, while arguing against this Revenue appeal, the respondent assessee submitted that the refund claim is to be filed by the assessee in terms of Notification No. 12/2012-CE after compliance of the condition of post clearance and which is that the vehicle is to be registered within three months from the date of clearance. Inasmuch as the cause of action arose at the time of registration as Taxi and time limit is to be recorded from the date of registration as Taxi. To justify this submission, reliance is placed on the Delhi High Court decision in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - 2014-TIOL-532-HC-DEL-CUS.

The Member (Judicial) observed that the sole issue is whether the time limit prescribed under Notification No. 12/2012 is to be taken from the date of clearance or from the date of registration of the vehicle as Taxi.

Extracting paragraph 12 of the Delhi High Court decision (supra), the Bench observed –

"…The analysis done by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reveals that the time limit to be counted from the date of cause of action. Admittedly, in this case, cause of action arises from filing the refund claim after registration as Taxi. If period is taken from the date of registration as Taxi then the refund claim filed by the respondent is within time."

Concluding that the refund claim filed by the respondent is within time, the Revenue appeal was dismissed.

In passing: Also read –

CX - Car registered for use solely as taxi - Time limit for suomotu self-crediting of refund amount should have kept pace with s.11B of CEA, 1944: CESTAT [See 2017-TIOL-4508-CESTAT-MUM].

(See 2017-TIOL-4548-CESTAT-MUM)