2016 (11) TMI 311

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt Shri H.M. Dixit, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Per: M V Ravindran. This appeal is preferred against Order-in-Appeal No: AT/491/Bel/2005 dated 22/09/2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone II. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is required to discharg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ived some consideration from the manufacturer of the chassis. Revenue wants to tax this amount as an amount received for manufacture of chassis. 4. The first appellate authority has come to the conclusion that replacement "modification of the spring leaf is done to make chassis suitable for fitment of the tipper-body and without this modification/ replacement it could not be fitted with the tippe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onsidered as a manufacturing activity, it would be manufacturing activity on the chassis and not on the body building activity. As per notification 3/2001 -CE and 6/2002-CE value of the chassis needs to be excluded, if it is so, there cannot be any demand on the said value/amount received by the appellant for modification / replacement of the leaf springs before fabricating the body on the said ch .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X