9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (T)]. In this appeal, preferred by Revenue, the issue involved is whether the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 462/86-C.E., dated 9-12-86 is available to the Respondents who fabricate body on the chasis of the motor vehicles. 2. Shri M.P. Singh, learned D.R., submitted that M/s. Sita Singh Engineers Sons are engaged in the manufacture of bodies. They claimed concessional rate o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacture of a motor vehicle falling under Heading No. 87.01 to 87.05 of the Tariff was held not to have survived in view of the dismissal of the appeal in the case of Kamal Auto Industries on merits. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Haryana Roadways Engg. Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, [2001 (131) E.L.T. 662] wherein it was held that classification of the bodies built ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules at the relevant time did not provide provisional assessment where the matter in issue pertains to the availability or otherwise of an exemption notification. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Ram Body Builders, [1997 (94) E.L.T. 442 (S.C.)] has held that the bodies which are built on chassis s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt manufacturer on chassis is classifiable under 87.07. This decision of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as the appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision in Kamal Auto Industries case was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit. The Respondents cannot also raise the arguments that provisional assessment could not have been ordered in their case as they have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
