ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. The appeal relates to claim for exemption for three vehicles one registered as a Taxi and other two registered as Ambulances. As regards the taxi, Shri Mohan Raghavan, learned General Manager appearing for the appellant company is not pressing the appeal as the refund claim is time barred having been filed beyond six months. As regards the two vehicles registered as Ambulances, he states that in one case the vehicle was sold to the Indian Red Cross Society but was meant for a Hospital as per the address given in the Registration Certificate. The second ambulance was also meant for Gynae-Cardiac centre though it was registered in the name of an individual. Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned S.D.R states that the conditions attached to Notification No. 4/97, dtd. 1-3-1997 at Sr. No. 34 is very specific which has not been satisfied in the case of the impugned ambulances. He further states that the Indian Red Cross was only subsequently included in the Notification but at the material time it was not so included. In both the cases, he submits, the ambulances were not registered in the name of registered hospitals etc. as required under the Notification.
2. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, I find that the impugned order has been passed correctly as exemption notifications have to be strictly construed. Since the conditions of the Notification have not been fulfilled, howsoever genuine the case of the appellants may be, the exemption cannot be granted as rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. As such, the appeals are rejected.