9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appellant undertook the same process of body building on the said chassis and claimed the classification of the same under Heading No. 87.04, as motor vehicles for transportation of the goods. Inasmuch as there is Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 granting exemption to motor vehicles falling under Heading No. 87.04, the appellant claimed the benefit of the same. It may not be out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) Shri K. Anandh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Promod Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER Duty of ₹ 2.17 crores along with penalty under Section 11AC and penalty of the same amount under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules stands confirmed on the appellant. The appellant is fabricating bodies on the duty paid chassis. Such chassis are being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansportation of the goods. Inasmuch as there is Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 granting exemption to motor vehicles falling under Heading No. 87.04, the appellant claimed the benefit of the same. It may not be out of place to mention here that the exemption as available in terms of the said notification is not applicable to motor vehicles manufactured on the chassis supplied by the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation was raised in respect of the identical manufacturing activity carried out on the chassis provided by chassis manufacturer. This was probably so because such type of motor vehicles were excluded from the benefit of the notification and were being cleared on payment of applicable rate of duty. 4. In any case, we find that in terms of Chapter Note-5 of Chapter 87, building a body or fabricat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
