9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concessional rate of Central Excise duty for fuel efficient light commercial motor vehicles of pay load not exceeding 4,000 Kilograms and falling within Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff; that they had sent the base models of the chassis for light commercial vehicle with the standard cab and body and got the same tested for fuel efficient and payload, etc. by the Vehicle Research Development Establishment, Ahmed Nagar (VRDE); that based on the report furnished by VRDE, the Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development granted the fuel efficiency Certificate dated 18-5-1987 on the strength of which they were availing of the benefit of Notification No. 462/86-CE; that the Commissioner has, under the impugned orders, disallowed the benefit of the Notification on the ground that the exemption granted in the Notification was for the motor vehicle with cab and body load and not to chassis for motor vehicles. The learned Counsel, further, submitted that there is no dispute that the chassis manufactured by them fulfill the conditions specified in Notification No. 462/86 viz. fuel efficiency, etc; that what is exempted under the Notification is Motor vehicle falling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 86 is available to the chassis manufactured by them. He also mentioned that on the same issue a show cause notice dated 21-8-87 was issued to them for demanding duty, that after considering their submissions, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jalandhar, under Order dated 7-12-87 and 8-2-88, extended the benefit of Notification No. 462/86; that no appeal had been filed against the said Order, that, therefore, it is not open to the Department to raise the same issue. 4. The learned Counsel also submitted that the conclusion of the Adjudicating Authority that the Notification grants concession to the vehicle tested with cab and body and, therefore, when the chassis is cleared without body and cab, the benefit cannot be extended, is the result of an incorrect and erroneous reading of the Notification; that the condition stipulated in the Notification that the vehicle is to be tested with the cab and body does not make its applicability restricted only to fully built motor vehicles and not to chassis; that all that Notification requires is that when the vehicle either in the form of chaises or in the form of completely built vehicle is tested for fuel efficiency, the bare chass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri M.P. Singh, Learned DR, submitted that the benefit of the Notification is available to fuel efficient light motor vehicles of payload not exceeding 4,000 kilograms; that the motor vehicles are classifiable under Headings 87.01 to 87.05 of the Tariff that the chassis is covered under Heading 87.06 which reads as chassis fitted with engines, for the motor vehicles of Heading Nos. 87.01 to 87.05 , that it is apparent from this description that the chassis is not a motor vehicle by itself, that the Appellants only manufacture and remove chassis with engine which is not covered by the Notification; that Heading 87.07 refers to Bodies (including cabs), for the motor vehicles of Heading Nos. 87.01 to 87.05; that bodies cannot be treated as motor vehicles; that when the Central Excise Tariff is clear, there is no need to refer to HSN Explanatory Notes for interpreting the exemption Notification; that when the Heading 87.06 is worded in its present form, chassis cannot be called motor vehicles. The learned DR relied upon the decision in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta II, 2001 (130) E.L.T. 513 (T) wherein it was held that drive away chassis are not complete motor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein it was held that expression in a Notification is to be given the same meaning as given in the tariff. 7. In reply, the learned Advocate mentioned that chassis is considered as motor vehicle by common man; that the decisions in the case of Hindustan Motors and Mahindra and Mahindra were in respect of classification of drive away chassis and duty on Motor vehicles after fabrication of body on duty paid chassis; that it has not been held in both the cases that chassis is not a motor vehicle; that as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Shillong v. Woodcraft Products Ltd. 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) reference has to be made to HSN. The learned DR contended that the issue involved in Mahindra and Mahindra was as to whether Motor vehicle was manufactured by the M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra and it was held that they had only cleared chassis on payment of duty. 8. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the Appellants are removing chaises to the independent body builders for building the body on the chassis and thereafter the motor vehicles is sold by them. Notification No. 462/86-C.E., dated 9-12-1986 exempts fuel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly sold these vehicles after testing etc. The Department sought differential duty on the ground that excise duty was not paid on full value of the vehicle at which these was sold in the course of wholesale trade. The Tribunal did not find substance in the submissions made by the Revenue that motor vehicle cleared by the body builders was a semi finished motor vehicle. The Tribunal also relied upon the decision in the case of the Appellants Swaraj Mazda v. CCE, Chandigarh [2000 (125) E.L.T. 959 (T) = 1996 (63) ECR 77 (T)], wherein it was held : The duty having been levied and collected at the stage of emergence of goods namely chassis as specified in the Tariff, therefore, the manufacturer of motor vehicle at the hands of a separate independent manufacture, cannot be considered as having been manufactured at the hands of the assesses [Emphasis supplied] 9. It is thus apparent from these decisions of the Tribunal that the suppliers of chassis were not treated as manufacturers of motor vehicles but only of chassis. This is evident from the observations of the Tribunal again in the case of Swaraj Mazda, supra, which are as under : Therefore, mere fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
