9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal, 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, the respondent purchased duty paid chassis from Tata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 4,42,823/-. A penalty for an amount of Rs. 5000/- was also imposed at the prescribed rate. It was furthermore directed that 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chassis (from M/s Tata Motors Limited) used by the appellants was classified by its manufacturer under SH 8706.29 vide invoices of M/s. Tata Motors Limited. The Tariff entry (8706.29) also clearly indicates that chassis falling thereunder is meant for motor vehicles of SH 8702.90. Hence 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to mean: "(22) "maxi cab" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more than twelve passengers, excluding the driver, for hire or reward;" 14. Indisputably, body building of chassis amounts to manufacturing. It falls under Heading 87.06. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether 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-Heading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of the Motor Vehicles Act. For good and sufficient reasons, in our opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent with reference to the job-work prepared by them had been rejected. The finding that they manufacture bodies for user thereof for maxi cabs with seating capacity of 12 persons excluding the driver is a finding of fact. Only because the manufacturers of chassis had classified them under Sub-Heading 8702.90, the same having regard to the independent manufacturing activities carried on by the respondent, was not decisive. The question in regard to the payability of duty would furthermore depend upon the registration certificates in respect of the vehicle in question. It is a statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
