1995 (11) TMI 242 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Duty liability on chassis and complete motor vehicles.
2. Classification and valuation of goods.
3. Allegations of suppression of facts and misstatement.
4. Independent identity of body builders.

Summary:

Issue 1: Duty Liability on Chassis and Complete Motor Vehicles:
In Appeal E.149/94, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed demands of Rs. 2,75,31,417 for the period 1986 to 1992 on the alleged manufacture of motor vehicles. The Assistant Collector had initially held that duty on chassis should not be charged twice, and demands after 1-3-1986 were dropped. However, the Collector (A) upheld the Revenue's contention that duty should be charged on the invoice price after body building, as there was no sale of the chassis, and the duty liability was not discharged at that stage.

Issue 2: Classification and Valuation of Goods:
In Appeals E.55/95-B1 and others, the Collector confirmed demands for short levy amounting to Rs. 2,39,65,986.89 for the period April 1992 to June 1992. It was held that the chassis remained with the assessee until the complete motor vehicle was sold, and the valuation should be based on the invoice value. The plea for adjusting duty paid by the independent body builder was rejected.

Issue 3: Allegations of Suppression of Facts and Misstatement:
In Appeal E/686/93-B1, the Collector confirmed duty of Rs. 5,93,035.77 and imposed a penalty of Rs. one lakh for alleged suppression of facts. The appellants argued that they had not suppressed facts and had duly informed the department about their activities. The Collector found them guilty of misstatement and confirmed the duty after deducting the duty paid on chassis.

Issue 4: Independent Identity of Body Builders:
In Appeal E/45/91-B1, the Collector confirmed excise duty of Rs. 23,17,959.24 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs. The appellants contended that body builders were independent manufacturers and had paid duty on the complete buses. The Collector rejected this plea and held that the appellants were the manufacturers of the motor vehicles. However, the Tribunal found that the body builders were indeed independent manufacturers, and the appellants were not liable to pay duty on the complete motor vehicles.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's contention was unsustainable. It held that the duty should be charged at the time of manufacture and not based on ownership or invoice value. The body builders were independent manufacturers, and the appellants were not liable to pay duty on the complete motor vehicles. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders in the assessee's appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.