2025-VIL-1960-CESTAT-CHD-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-1960-CESTAT-CHD-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Refund of duty paid on ambulances under "Arogya Kavacha" scheme – Appellant signed an MoU with the Government of Karnataka to run the "Arogya Kavacha" ambulance service, under which the appellant ordered vehicles from various manufacturers, which were then sent to a fabricator for conversion into ambulances - Dept of the view that the fabrication activities by fabricator amounted to "manufacture" and liable to duty. The fabricator-M/s BHPL paid the duty under protest and the appellant later filed a claim for refund of the duty paid claiming that they have paid the duty on behalf of the Government of Karnataka and M/s BHPL - Whether the appellant is eligible to claim the refund of the central excise duty paid, even though it is not the manufacturer or buyer of the vehicles - HELD - The appellant is neither the manufacturer nor the buyer/owner of the vehicles, and thus does not fulfill the eligibility conditions for claiming the refund under the Central Excise law and the relevant notification. The law recognizes only the manufacturer or the buyer as eligible for claiming refund, and the appellant could not establish its status as either - The conditions prescribed in the statute or notification for claiming an exemption or refund must be strictly complied with, and the burden is on the claimant to prove its eligibility. In the present case, the appellant failed to fulfill the mandatory conditions laid down in the notification for claiming the refund – Further, the MOU also doesn’t appear to recognize the appellants as owners of the vehicles. The MoU doesn’t mention of the reimbursement of taxes, if any paid by the appellant. If the appellant has undertaken the activity as per MOU or as part of Corporate Social Responsibility, they cannot enrich themselves at the cost of the Government - The appellant could not produce any evidence to show that they are the buyers or owners or the consumers of the vehicles who have borne the incidence of duty and have not passed on to others – the appellants are neither a manufacturer nor buyer nor the owners of vehicles and thus have not fulfilled the substantive conditions for refund – The impugned order is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C of FY24-25
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?