9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 1 - AT - Central ExciseValuation and classification of ambulances - body building on the duty paid chassis - the view of the Revenue is that the appellant has misclassified the ambulances and having merit classification under Tariff Item 87033392 of the CETA, 1985 - period December 2009 to September 2014 - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that in the appellant s own case for the earlier period M/S SITA SINGH SONS P. LTD., M/S SML ISUZU LTD. VERSUS CCE, DELHI-IV 2016 (7) TMI 346 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH where it was held that Primary test is that sitting capacity of the vehicle. Admittedly 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 was also held that valuation to be made under Rule 10A of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. Therefore, we hold that the appellants are liable to pay duty on the value arrived at under Rule 10A of the said rules. Thus, the appellant is liable to pay duty as per Rule 10A and if any differential duty has been paid, the same is subject to verification - Vehicle in question is classifiable under Chapter heading No. 8702 of CETA, 1985 - appeal disposed off.
Issues: Misclassification of ambulances under Tariff Item 87033392 of CETA, 1985 and valuation of goods under Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
Misclassification Issue: The appellant received duty paid chassis for fabricating ambulances under Chapter 87 of the CETA, 1985. The Revenue alleged misclassification of the ambulances under Tariff Item 87033392 and demanded duty payment based on Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The appellant contested, citing a previous tribunal decision and argued that the sitting capacity of the vehicle determines the classification under Heading 87.02 or 87.03 of CETA. Referring to the TELCO case, the Tribunal held that the ambulances were appropriately classifiable under Heading 87.02. Thus, the appellant was deemed liable to pay duty accordingly. Valuation Issue: Regarding the valuation of goods, the Tribunal relied on the Audi Automobiles case and held that valuation should be based on Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The appellant claimed to have already paid duty as per Rule 10A, which the adjudicating authority was tasked to verify. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the appellant should pay duty as per Rule 10A and any differential duty paid should be subject to verification. Additionally, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty was imposable on the appellants. As per the precedent decision, the appellant was directed to pay duty as per Rule 10A, with verification of any differential duty paid, and the vehicle in question was classified under Chapter heading No. 8702 of CETA, 1985. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
