9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ried out when the duty paid chassis received by the assessee from chassis manufacturers. The Commissioner noted that the facts of the case were identical with the issue decided by the Tribunal in the case of Maniar & Co. v. CCE, Ahmadabad in the assessees favour. Applying ratio of the cited judgment, he dropped the proceedings and held that the assessee is eligible for benefit of the Notification. The findings recorded by the Commissioner in Paragraphs 42 to 49 of the impugned order are re-produced herein below: 42. I have carefully gone through the case proceedings the submission made by the assessee through their written reply and at the time of P.H. The issue before me is to decide the correct classification of dumper placer equipment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e garbage as such is not transported by the dumper placer hence held the Dumper placer cannot be said to be used for transport of goods. Therefore its classification was decided under chapter heading 8705 of the CETA 1985. The dumper placer manufactured by assessee does not have garbage container attached on the chassis of the motor vehicle. Dumper placer collects the garbage container from different point and after dumping the garbage at dumping ground, empty container are placed back at the points from where there are collected. In other words it dose not directly carry garbage but carries container-containing garbage. In term of HSN notes as referred to by the assessee, it is only such refuse collector which have fixed arrangement for co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id fabricated body on the chassis is painted as per the customer's requirement. By emphasizing upon the aforesaid process employed on the chassis, it is contended that dumper places does not come into existence independently before it is placed oh the chassis and hence it cannot be said to be goods. Also it emerge out of duty paid component or bought out items from the open market which are assumed to be duty paid. Accordingly the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied. 45. Further the allegation of the Dept is that the activity involved is not merely body building activity to make special purpose vehicle, but is clearly distinguished into two parts - i.e., to fit the base platform on the chassis and then mount by assembling the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Hydraulic Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCC 1998 (37) ELT 213 (T) and CCE v. Indian Hydraulic Industries Pvt. Ltd. in order to support their contention that specialized equipment fitted on motor vehicle is not to be assessed separately. 47. A perusal of the first quoted decision in the case of Indian Hydraulic Industries Pvt. Ltd., show that the appellant were engaged in mounting/fixing/ fitting the specialized equipment on duty paid chassis and converting such chassis into High -lift commissary van, Baggage conveyer, passenger steps, Tow Tugs, Pilot Dollies, water and lock lets, Aerial Tower Wagon, Truck Dumping Platform etc. The Department assessed the specialized equipment separately under tariff item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by piece assembly or fabrication of market purchased parts/materials on the chassis it self. It is not separately manufactured and the mounted on the chassis. In such a situation, there cannot be said to be manufactured of marketable goods and hence no duty can be levied thereon. Consequently, it cannot be held that since no duty has been paid on 'Dumper Placing equipment' a composite machine, the assessee is not entitled to exemption in terms of Notification No. 5/98 CE, 5/99 CE 6/2000 as 3/2001. On the contrary, the piece-by-piece assembly is made out of parts/materials which are bought out from the market. Whatever small processes are carried out-in-house on the material obtained from market relate to cutting, fabricating, weldi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce and hence it cannot become changeable to duty in terms of Section Note 4 to Section XVI of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. 49. As discussed in the proceeding paragraph, there is no case on merit against the assessee. Accordingly it is not felt necessary to go into the aspect of limitation for raising of demand or for imposing of penalty upon M/s. KABL and Shri. L. Viswanath Sing Vice President of M/s. KABL. In view of the above findings I pass the following order. ORDER The proceedings initiated vide Show Cause Notice F.No. INVDSCEI/SZU/38/2002 dated 28.6.2002 are here by dropped. The Revenue is aggrieved with the above findings. They have raised several contentions and grounds to distinguish the Tribunal's judgment in Maniar & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
