9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an what was levied according to the said practice during the period from 1-5-1991 to 28-2-2001. The Central Government by the said Notification has directed that the duty payable in excess shall not be required to be paid in respect of bodies built by independent body builders on the motor vehicle chassis on which the duty of excise was short-levied during the aforesaid period in accordance with the said practice. As the demand in the present matter relates to the period specified in Section 11C. Notification and the appellants have paid duty under Headings 87.02/87.04 they are eligible to the benefit of the Notification. Accordingly, they are not liable to pay any duty - in favour of assessee. - E/2146/2004-Mum. - - - Dated:- 4-10-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Kailash Auto Builders Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal reported in 2005 (186) E.L.T. 504 (Tri.-Del.) and the Tribunal held against the Revenue. The ratio of the above decision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case hence the demand is not sustainable. 4. The contention of Revenue is that the bodies built of applicant is classifiable under heading 87.07 of the Central Excise Tariff, therefore they are not covered under the benefit of notification as held by the adjudicating authority. 5. We find that the issue involved in this appeal is whether the benefit of notification is available to the bodies built on chassis which are classifiable under heading 87.07 of the Central Excise Tariff are entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Government has directed that duty of excise payable in excess on the bodies built by independent body builders on motor vehicle chassis shall not be required to be paid even if the duty of excise was short-levied during the period from 1-5-1991 to 28-2-2001; that the period involved in all the three appeals is covered by the period mentioned in the Notification as the period of demand is from March 1995 to December 1999. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Jay Cee Coach Builders Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh-I - 2003 (159) E.L.T. 297 (Tri.). Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned DR reiterated the findings contained in the impugned Orders. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is not in dispute th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
