2005 (2) TMI 392 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of body built on motor vehicle chassis under heading 87.02 or 87.07 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Analysis:
The appeals in question arose from a common Order-in-Appeal, where the issue at hand was the classification of bodies built on motor vehicle chassis under specific headings of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Appellants argued that they were following Board's instructions from 1986, which clarified that bodies built on motor vehicle chassis by independent body builders are not liable to duty under Heading 87.07. They relied on a Supreme Court decision in CCE v. Dhiren Chemical Industries, emphasizing that the Revenue must adhere to its own Circulars, making the Circular binding. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that previous court decisions, such as CCE v. Ram Body Builders and Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh & Ors. v. U.O.I., had established that bodies built on chassis supplied by customers fall under Heading 87.07. The Revenue argued that the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decisions supersede the Board's instructions, making the bodies classifiable under Heading 87.07 only.

Upon considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ram Body Builders, which clarified that bodies built on chassis by independent body builders are classifiable under Heading 87.07 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal found no merit in the Appellants' contentions that the bodies should be classified under Heading 87.02 or that the Board's 1986 instructions should prevail over court decisions. The Tribunal concluded that the bodies in question are chargeable to duty under Heading 87.07, in line with the Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the appeals were rejected, affirming the classification under Heading 87.07 and dismissing the arguments based on the Board's instructions from 1986.