9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 85 (for short "the Tariff Act") at its factory at Jamshedpur. 2. The appellant manufactures motor vehicles of various models. For each model the parts are according to its configuration and technical specifications and the price is also declared accordingly to the department. In other words, the value of the chassis depends upon its firments. All the chassis in question had been actually fitted with Engine No. 697 NA and Gear Box GBS 40. There is no dispute on this factual position between the parties. 3. The appellant submitted the price list dated 1-11-1994 and 1-4-1995 wherein it was mentioned that the chassis of model no. 1612 is fitted with engine no. 692 DI engines and GBS 30 gear box whereas the chassis in question were fitted with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Member (Technical) dismissed the application on the ground of inherency. The 3rd Member who heard the matter referred to, agreed with the Member (Technical). 5. The present appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 31st October, 2000 passed by the Tribunal as also the order dated 8th October, 2001 on the application for rectification of mistake. 6. Mr. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that there was a clerical/typing error in the price lists dated 1st November, 1994 and 1st April, 1995 filed by the appellant. In other words, his case is that due to oversight engine no. 692 and gear box GBS 30 was mentioned instead of engine no. 697 NA and GBS 40, which are indeed stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal. Certification from Automobile Research Association of India, which is a mandatory requirement under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and VRDE, also shows that the specification of chassis of model no. 1612 are engine no. 697NA and gear box GBS 40. This aspect has also been overlooked by the Tribunal while passing the order. 9. Further, it is also clear from the invoices raised by the appellant during the disputed period that engine no. 697NA and gear box GBS 40 are not mentioned as additional fitment but as a standard fitment and full duty has been paid on that basis. Had the standard fitment of chassis of model no. 1612 been engine no. 692 DI and gear box GBS 30, then the appellant would have charged separately for fitting th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
