2006 (9) TMI 463 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of motor vehicles for NCCD liability based on seating capacity.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in body building on vehicular chassis, received chassis from manufacturers, built bodies, and delivered motor vehicles without paying National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) during the disputed period. The dispute arose as to whether the vehicles were classifiable under sub-heading 8702.10 or 8702.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Finance Act, 2003 imposed NCCD @ 1% ad valorem on motor vehicles under specific sub-headings. The appellants claimed the vehicles were under SH 8702.90, exempt from NCCD, based on a job work statement showing a seating capacity of 21 + 1 passengers for a vehicle built for a customer. However, the department contended that the vehicles had a seating capacity of only 13 passengers, as per statements from the appellants' Accountant and Asst. Accountant, supported by an RTO certificate.

The Tribunal considered the conflicting evidence presented. While the appellants relied on the job work statement indicating a higher seating capacity, the department's evidence from the appellants' own functionaries and the RTO certificate suggested otherwise. The Tribunal found merit in the department's case, emphasizing that mere reliance on a job work statement was insufficient to establish the seating capacity of the vehicles. The statements and certificates provided by the appellants' personnel and the RTO were considered as stronger evidence supporting the department's position. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellants were prima facie liable to pay NCCD @ 1% ad valorem. The Tribunal directed the appellants to pre-deposit the duty amount within four weeks and report compliance by a specified date.

In conclusion, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of concrete evidence, such as RTO certificates and statements from authorized personnel, in determining the classification and consequent duty liability of motor vehicles for NCCD purposes. The decision underscored the need for accurate documentation and compliance with statutory requirements to avoid disputes regarding duty payments.