9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.G. Chacko, Member Judicial 1. In each of these appeals, the Revenue has challenged grant of refund of an amount of duty to the Respondents by the Lower Appellate Authority. The Respondents were engaged in the activity of body building on chassis of various vehicles. Prior to April 1986. duty of Dxcise was not leviable on the said activity but, subsequently, with an amendment of Chapter 87 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Body-Builders. In that case, the Revenue had claimed classification under Headings 87.02 and 87.04 (depending on whether the body building activity was done on chassis of buses or trucks). It was the contention of the Assessee that was accepted by the Apex Court and hence, the above classification under Heading 87.07. In the Impugned Orders. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) conferred the benefit of Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the civil appeals or SLPs considered by the Apex Court in Ram Body Builders (supra), the benefit of the Apex Court's decision would not be available to the said Respondents. However, as the question arose as to whether the assessments were provisional or not, the Tribunal remanded the case of the Respondents in the batch of appeals to the Original Authority for de novo consideration. It appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 87.04 would be classifiable under Heading 87.07. It was a decision binding on all authorities by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution. Moreover, classification being a departmental function, the classification finalized by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Body Builders (supra) would be binding on the Revenue vis-a-vis manufacturers of identical goods. In other words, such classification b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
