ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 98/2000, dated 29-8-2000 by which the Commissioner has rejected the refund claim for an amount of Rs. 76,563/- lodged by their letter dated 28-6-99. The Commissioner has examined the letter and found that the letter was addressed to the Asstt. Commissioner for extension of time by one month for registering the vehicle as a taxi. The Commissioner noted that the letter cannot be read as refund application and subsequently, the letter which is satisfying the terms of claim filed on 28-6-99 is barred by time as it was filed beyond the period of six months.
2. Ld. Counsel Shri V. Balasubramaniam referred to the application filed by them which is dated 17-4-1999, which is reproduced herein below :-
“To,
The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise,
Vth Division, Vth Floor,
MIIU Complex,
Nandanam, Chennai.
Sirs,
Sub.: Lancer Car Registered As Luxury Taxi – Extension of time requested – reg.
With due respect, we would like to bring to your notice that our dealer in Ahmedabad, Gujarat State namely M/s. Cama Motors Ltd. already submitted their requisition letter to the concerned Commissioner of Transport for registration of the below mentioned cars as luxury taxi. The Photo Copy of the same is enclosed for your perusal.
1. Name : M/s. Jayalaxmi Travels, Prop. Pankaj R. Patel
Engine No.: 3MNLX000452
Chassis No.: MA700CK8AWL100528 invoice No.: 983000090
Invoice Date: 15-12-99
Sale Date: 28-12-99
Extention time Requested up to 30-5-99
2. Name : M/s. Cama Motors Ltd.
Engine No.: 3MNLX000567
Chassis No.: MA700CK8AXA101290
Invoice No.: 983000429
Invoice Date: 13-1-99
Sale Date: 18-1-99
Extension time Requested up to 30-5-99
Due to the administrative reasons in the Gujarat Transport Registration Authority, the process of registration may be delayed for another one month.
Hence, we request your Goodself to give extention of time up to 30-5-99 for registration of the vehicles and submit to the Honourable AC of Central Excise.”
3. Ld. Counsel pointed out that the terms of the notification required that they have to register themselves as a taxi before RTO for claiming the benefit of Notification No. 5/98-C.E., dated 7-6-98, which grants exemption to taxies which are registered both with the AC by the manufacturer and with the registering authority and obtain a registration certificate. There was a delay in complying with the same. Hence, they had filed the above application. It is contended that the above application is to be treated as a refund claim as there was no other intention for addressing such a letter.
4. Ld. DR referred to the objections filed by the Joint Commissioner vide his letter dated 27-12-2002, which supports the Order-in-Appeal. It is contended that the letter 17-4-1999 speaks only of permission to extend the time for registering as a taxi and there was no reference to refund or amounts paid or for treating the deposit of tax paid earlier as a refund and under protest. He submits that duty was not paid under protest and, therefore, there claim having been filed beyond the period of six months, is time barred and the letter which was addressed on 17-4-99 was on a different context as the subject itself indicates and hence, the authorities below have rightly treated that letter as not a letter for refund claim. Hence, he submits that the appeal is required to be dismissed.
5. On a careful consideration of the submissions, I am inclined to agree with the authorities below to treat the letter as a letter seeking extension of time for registering the vehicle as a taxi. The appellants have not indicated the amount of payment of tax made nor the amount of claim nor the period of payment. Therefore, nothing pertaining to refund claim can be read from this letter. The letter is crystal clear inasmuch as the subject itself indicates that it is for extension of time to register the vehicle as a luxury taxi. There arc no particulars regarding payment of duty and the period during which it was paid and as to how the letter is to be treated as refund claim. Further more, the claim is not filed with Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise (Refunds). Therefore, the appellant’s contention that this letter which is extracted supra is required to be treated as refund claim is not justified. The context and the subject being very clear for the purpose of registration as a luxury taxi and in the absence of any refund claim being made therein, it cannot, therefore, be read as refund claim. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.