2017 (11) TMI 141 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - process OF refurbishing old Ambulances - benefit of N/N. 06/2006-CE dt. 01.03.2006 - whether the renovation of 14 old and used Ambulances amounts to manufacture? - Held that - the appellants have showed that the vehicles which they have received were in the nature of the Ambulances ab initio as is evident from the certificate of the registration taken by the Joint Director, Medical and Rural Health, Govt. of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the finding given by the Ld. Commissioner in his order that the vehicles which the noticee received could not be used as Ambulance is patently erroneous - after the process of refurbishing/renovation, vehicle remained as an Ambulance only and did not undergo any transformation to a new product. The nature and use of the vehicle, in other words the basic character of the vehicle, remained same as before the process of refurbishing. In our view, therefore, no new article emerged out of the process undertaken by the appellant. As regard demand of duty on customization of motor vehicle we find that the respondent is carrying out the activity of cosmetic changes on the duty paid cars and vehicles these duty paid vehicles are completely ready for use with its body. They are doing cosmetic changes as per the requirement of the customer inside and outside of the vehicle. In our considered view these activity do not amount to manufacture for the reason that the original duty paid motor vehicles remained as motor vehicles only, except some changes and due to these changes original identity of the product in terms of Central Excise provisions does not change. Classification of ambulances manufactyured by appellant - N/N. 06/2006-CE dt. 01.03.2006 - Held that - issue of classification of Ambulances was examined by this Tribunal in the case of Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-IV 2016 (7) TMI 346 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , where also the vehicle was capable of carrying more than 12 people as in the present case, it was held in that case that vehicle in question can carry more than 12 persons excluding the driver or 14 persons including the driver. Therefore, we hold that the vehicle in question is classifiable under heading 87.02 of CETA. - It is not disputed that the appellant have not availed the Cenvat Credit on chassis. Since, we have held that the goods are classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 8702, the appellants are therefore entitled to the benefit of Sr. No. 41 of N/N. 06/2006-CE. Valuation - chassis is supplied after payment of duty by the principal manufacturer - Held that - the value of the chassis and duty thereon is to be excluded for determining the net duty liability on the Ambulance - this issue has been settled by this Tribunal in its judgments in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. Ashiyana Autobodies Ltd. 2016 (12) TMI 1451 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that duty of excise paid on chassis is excludible - the duty has to be calculated on the fabrication charges only. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the renovation of 14 old and used Ambulances amounts to manufacture.
2. Classification of 56 Ambulances manufactured by the appellants.
3. Entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 06/2006-CE.
4. Valuation for the purpose of calculating duty when chassis is supplied after payment of duty by the principal manufacturer.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Renovation of 14 Old and Used Ambulances:
The appellants argued that the renovation of old and used Ambulances did not amount to manufacture. They contended that the changes were cosmetic and did not alter the basic character of the vehicles, which remained Ambulances. The Tribunal found that the vehicles were originally registered as Ambulances and that the refurbishing process did not transform them into a new product. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in UOI Vs. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd., it was concluded that no new commercial commodity emerged from the refurbishing process. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the renovation did not amount to manufacture.

2. Classification of 56 Ambulances:
The appellants classified the Ambulances under Chapter Heading 8702, claiming they were capable of carrying more than 12 people. The Tribunal referred to its previous judgment in Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-IV, which established that vehicles with a seating capacity of more than 12 persons should be classified under Heading 87.02. The Tribunal found that the vehicles in question met this criterion and thus should be classified under Heading 87.02.

3. Entitlement to the Benefit of Notification No. 06/2006-CE:
Since the Tribunal held that the vehicles were correctly classified under Heading 87.02, it followed that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Sr. No. 41 of Notification No. 06/2006-CE. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had not availed of the Cenvat Credit on the chassis, meeting the conditions stipulated in the notification.

4. Valuation for Duty Calculation:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the value of the chassis should be included in the assessable value of the Ambulances. It cited its previous judgments in CCE, Bombay-I Vs. Rubi Coach Builders Ltd. and CCE, Pune Vs. Ashiyana Autobodies Ltd., which held that when the chassis is supplied after payment of duty by the principal manufacturer, its value should be excluded from the assessable value of the vehicle. Therefore, the duty should be calculated only on the fabrication charges.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner on all counts. It held that the renovation of the 14 old and used Ambulances did not amount to manufacture, the 56 Ambulances were correctly classified under Heading 87.02, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 06/2006-CE, and the duty should be calculated based on the fabrication charges only. The appeal was allowed.

← Previous Next →