2017 (8) TMI 158 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of motor vehicle - Car Carrier Trailers - Held that - The show cause notice after considering all the documents and detailed investigation come to the conclusion that the goods in question is Car Carrier Trailers, however as submitted by the Ld. Counsel, in the record itself, it can be found out that what is the nature of the goods which is a primary requirement for deciding the classification, it cannot be said that the facts available in the records, if it is raised before the Tribunal is a fresh evidence - Therefore in the interest of justice, it is necessary to re-consider the aspect of nature of motor vehicle that how many vehicles are actually car carrier trailers and how many are car carrier trucks - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods as Car Carrier Trailers or Car Carrier Trucks under Chapter 87.
2. Validity of demand of duty, penalty, and interest imposed.
3. Admissibility of evidence and submissions before the Tribunal.
4. Imposition of personal penalty on the proprietor of the appellant.

Analysis:
1. Classification of Goods:
The appellant contended that part of the vehicles were Car Carrier Trucks, not subject to duty under Chapter 87.04. The Tribunal noted that this issue was not raised before the adjudicating authority. However, considering the nature of the goods is crucial for classification. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter for verification of the vehicles' nature to determine the correct duty liability.

2. Validity of Demand:
The adjudicating authority confirmed duty demand, penalty, and interest based on the investigation. The appellant argued that certain vehicles were exempt under specific notifications. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submissions and ordered a fresh assessment after verifying the nature of the vehicles.

3. Admissibility of Evidence:
The Revenue objected to the appellant raising the classification issue before the Tribunal, citing lack of supporting documents. However, the Tribunal considered it essential for proper classification and ruled in favor of allowing the issue to be raised before them for a fair assessment.

4. Personal Penalty Imposition:
Regarding the personal penalty on the proprietor, the Tribunal cited precedents that there is no distinction between a Proprietor and the Proprietorship concern. Consequently, the penalty on the proprietor was set aside based on established legal principles.

In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh assessment based on the nature of the vehicles. All other issues were left open for further consideration, except for the personal penalty on the proprietor, which was overturned.