2000 (4) TMI 396 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of fabricated bodies on duty-paid chassis under Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 63/93 and subsequent notifications.
3. Interpretation and impact of Note 3 to Chapter 87 of CETA.
4. Reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of C.C.E. v. Ram Body Builders.
5. Imposition of duty and penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Fabricated Bodies on Duty-Paid Chassis:
The central issue in the appeals was whether the fabrication of bodies on duty-paid chassis should be classified under Heading No. 87.07 or under Headings 87.02/87.04 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellants argued that the fabrication of bodies on chassis amounts to the manufacture of motor vehicles, which are exempt under Notification No. 63/93. The Commissioner, however, held that this activity merits classification under Heading 87.07 based on the Supreme Court's judgment in C.C.E. v. Ram Body Builders.

2. Applicability of Notification No. 63/93 and Subsequent Notifications:
The appellants contended that they do not take Modvat credit on the duty paid on the chassis and other inputs used by them. They referred to Notification No. 4/97, which exempts goods under Headings 87.02 to 87.04, provided the vehicles are manufactured from duty-paid chassis without taking Modvat credit. They argued that their activities should fall under these exempted headings.

3. Interpretation and Impact of Note 3 to Chapter 87 of CETA:
The appellants emphasized that Note 3 to Chapter 87, introduced on 25-7-1991, specifies that the activity of building a body or fabricating or mounting structures on the chassis amounts to the manufacture of motor vehicles. They argued that this note changes the legal landscape, making the Supreme Court's judgment inapplicable for periods after its introduction. The Department of Revenue's Circular F. No. 156/8/98-CX. 4, dated 22-3-1999, supports this view, clarifying that post-25-7-1991, classification should be governed by Note 3.

4. Reliance on the Supreme Court Judgment in C.C.E. v. Ram Body Builders:
The Commissioner relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in C.C.E. v. Ram Body Builders, which held that bodies built on chassis supplied by customers fall under Heading No. 87.07. The appellants argued that this judgment was rendered before the introduction of Note 3 and is therefore not applicable to their case. They cited the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, to support their classification under Heading 87.07 before Note 3 was introduced.

5. Imposition of Duty and Penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act:
The Commissioner imposed penalties on the appellants and confirmed the demand for duty, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment. The appellants argued that since their activities were known to the Department, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked, and penalties under Section 11AC were not justified. They cited the Tribunal's decision in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, which held that Section 11AC penalties could not be imposed for periods before 28-9-1996.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the introduction of Note 3 to Chapter 87 constitutes a deeming provision, changing the legal interpretation of body fabrication on chassis to amount to the manufacture of motor vehicles under Headings 87.01 to 87.05. The Tribunal disagreed with the views expressed in Kamal Auto Industries and decided to refer the matter to a Larger Bench to resolve the issue definitively. The issues referred for resolution are:
1. Whether Note 3 to Chapter 87 deems the activity of body building or fabrication on chassis as manufacture of motor vehicles under Headings 87.01 to 87.05.
2. Whether the Supreme Court's judgment in C.C.E. v. Ram Body Builders is rendered inapplicable by the introduction of Note 3 to Chapter 87.

← Previous Next →