9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed against the respondent under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Briefly putting the facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that M/s. Sutlej Coach Builders (P) Ltd. (now known as Sutlej Motors Ltd.), Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar is engaged in the manufacture of bodies on the chassis for public transport passenger motor vehicle, ambulance, motor vehicle for transport of goods and special purpose motor vehicle. 2. During the period 1-2-1991 to 24-7-1991, the respondent claimed classification of above said goods under sub-heading No. 8702.00, 8704.00 & 8705.00 and paid duty accordingly. 3. The Department was of the view that the aforesaid manufacture of bodies of vehicles on chassis supplied by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent on the chassis supplied by the customers under chapter heading 8702 to 8705 is not sustainable in law as it is in direct conflict with the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh v. UOI - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 631 (P & H) wherein it was held that building of bodies of bus and trucks on the chassis supplied by the customers does not amount to manufacture of motor vehicles and is covered under Heading 87.07 of the Central Excise Act, 1985. He submits that the issue regarding classification of fabrication of bodies of the transport vehicles have been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Ram Body Builders - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 442 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court upheld the view of Pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to pay excise duty. For this reason also, the impugned order cannot be faulted. In support of this contention, learned Counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of C.C.E., Bombay v. Giridhara Supply Co. - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.). 8. We have considered the rival contention and perused the record. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding classification of the body built or fabricated on the chassis by an independent body builders for the purpose of excise duty. This issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in its various pronouncements. The Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Ram Body Builders supra has held that bus/truck body built on chassis supplied by the customers are classifiabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or erroneously refunded, whether or not such non-levy or nonpayment, short-levy or short payment or erroneous refund, as the case may be, was on the basis of any approval, acceptance or assessment relating to the rate of duty on or valuation of excisable goods under any other provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, a Central Excise Officer may, within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty which has not been so levied or paid or which has been so short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. Provided that where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
