9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the question involved in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 22.09.2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai in Appeal No. E/616 of 2005. 2. Respondent is engaged in body building on duty paid chassis. Indisputably, it amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Note 3 of Chapter 87 of Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act"), which is in the following terms: "3. For the purposes of this Chapter, building a body or fabrication or mounting or fitting of structures or equipment on the chassis falling under heading No. 87.06 shall amount to 'manufacturer' of a motor vehicle." 3. For carrying out its manufacturing activities, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at on the said amount of duty interest shall be payable. 8. An appeal was preferred there against by the respondent contending that the job cards issued by them indicate that the orders were for fabrication of more than 16 seats in the cab and as such thereby the 'goods' manufactured by them should be classified under Sub-Heading 8702.90 wherefor no NCCD was payable. The said contention was rejected by the appellate authority in terms of its judgment dated 18.04.2005 holding: "The evidences of job cards produced at the time of personal hearing cannot be relied upon by them as the same are new evidences in the form of new plea which were not produced before the Lower Authority that cannot be entertained at this stage as hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e there is no question of the appellants' product being classified under SH 8702.10 and demanded NCCD is set aside. The appeal is allowed." 10. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the Tribunal committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it proceeded to determine the issue relying only on or on the basis of the invoice issued by the manufacturer of chassis, which is impermissible in law. 11. Mr. S. Nanda Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that not only the manufacturer of chassis; even the job cards produced by the respondent would clearly show that NCCD was not payab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther a maxi cab should be classified under the respective tariff heads, i.e., 87.02 to 87.05 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under the Chapter Heading 87.07? 15. Indisputably, again NCCD was imposed at the rate of one per cent advalorem on the goods falling under Sub-Headings 8702.10, 8703.90 and 8704.90. Respondent during the period in question allegedly manufactured 87 numbers of maxi cabs. An investigation in regard to the number of seats of the said vehicle was carried out. Statements of two of the officers of the respondent, viz., S. Balamurugan and P.V. Subbaraj were recorded wherefrom it appeared that the respondent had built maxi cabs with seating capacity of 12 PLUS 1 and not 16 PLUS 1. Documentary evidences were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility of duty would furthermore depend upon the registration certificates in respect of the vehicle in question. It is a statutory document granted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Such a certificate is issued upon an inspection of the vehicle by the authorities of the transport department. What is relevant was the terms of the contract entered into by and between the respondent and their customers. On a chassis classifiable under Sub-Heading 8706.29, the manufacturer can make a body thereupon having regard to the nature of orders placed by their customers. In a given case, it may be of sixteen seating capacity but it may be more or less than the same in some other cases. What is, therefore, relevant is the seat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
