9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icles, and also that the manufacturer of the vehicle is not the chassis manufacturer - Held that:- w.e.f. 2005 Chapter Note 5 has been introduced to Chapter 87 according to which, for the purpose of this chapter building of body or fabrication or mounting or fitting of the structure or equipment on the Chassis falling under heading 8706 shall amount to manufacture of motor vehicle. In view of this chapter note, which was introduced since 2005, the chassis with the body constructed by a body builder, would have to be classified as a motor vehicle and since in this case the vehicle manufactured are meant for transportation of goods the same would be classifiable under heading 8704. The judgment of Honble Punjab and Haryana in the case of Uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een manufactured out of chassis falling under heading 8706 on which the excise duty has been paid and the body builder has not taken cenvat credit of the duty paid on chassis or other inputs used in the manufacture of such vehicles, and also that the manufacturer of the vehicle is not the chassis manufacturer. There is no dispute that the conditions regarding the non-availment of cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs or the body builder not being the chassis manufacturer stand satisfied. The departments only objection is that the chassis on which the body has been constructed by the appellant, would be classifiable under heading 8707 as body and not as vehicles meant for transportation of goods under heading 8704 and on this basis, the exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complete vehicle by constructing body on a chassis has to be classified as motor vehicle, in view of Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 87, that once the goods are classifiable under heading 8704, the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 6/06-CE (Sl.No.39) would be available to the appellant as other conditions stand satisfied. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct and the appellant have strong primafacie case in their favaour and hence, the requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof be stayed. 4. Shri Ranjan Khanna, the ld. DR opposed the stay application by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order and emphas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Punjab and Haryana in the case of Union of India vs. Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh (supra) pertains to the period when chapter note 5 was not there. Similarly, the Tribunal judgment in the case of Kerala State Road Transport Corp., Central Works vs. CCE, Trivandrum (supra) also pertains to the period prior to 2005 as in this judgement the chapter note 5 has not been considered. The judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Automotive Coaches and Components vs. CCE, Chennai is in respect of classification of chassis fitted with cab on which body has not been constructed and as such the ratio of this judgment also would not be applicable to this facts of this case. Moreover, we find that in the appellants own case in respect of another manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
