2009 (10) TMI 748 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) on "Chassis fitted with engine" for Dumpers.
2. Marketability and classification of "Chassis fitted with engine" during the manufacturing process.
3. Applicability of Notification No. 67/95 for exemption from NCCD.

Summary:

Issue 1: Liability to pay NCCD on "Chassis fitted with engine" for Dumpers:
The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Original No. 02/CCE/2007, which dropped the proceedings for recovery of NCCD from the respondents for the period 1-3-2003 to 31-1-2006. The Revenue argued that the respondents should have discharged NCCD on the "Chassis fitted with engine" as these were captively consumed in the manufacture of Dumpers and were not exempt under Notification No. 67/95.

Issue 2: Marketability and classification of "Chassis fitted with engine":
The respondents contended that no finished product, specifically "Chassis," came into existence during the manufacturing process, and thus, NCCD was not payable. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that the "Chassis" did not emerge as a marketable product during the manufacturing stages of Dumpers. The detailed findings indicated that the "Chassis" was not a "Drive away Chassis" and did not have the characteristics required for marketability.

Issue 3: Applicability of Notification No. 67/95 for exemption from NCCD:
The Adjudicating Authority held that even if the "Chassis" were considered a manufactured product, the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 67/95 would apply, and NCCD would not be leviable. This conclusion was supported by the decision in the case of Tatra Trucks India Ltd. v. CCE, where it was held that NCCD is a duty of excise and the exemption under Notification No. 67/95 is applicable to NCCD.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's findings, stating that the "Chassis" did not emerge as a marketable product during the manufacturing process of Dumpers. Consequently, NCCD was not payable, and the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 67/95 was applicable. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the legality and correctness of the impugned order.