9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Satish Chandra The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 28.03.2007 passed by the Ld. Commissioner (A) in the appeal No. 220/CE/CHD/07 dated 29.06.07. 2. The brief facts of the case are as below :- (i) The respondent is engaged in the job work of body building for motor vehicles of Chapter 8702, 8704 etc. The respondent receives non-duty paid chasis supplied by M/s Swaraj Mazda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direct that any short payment made as a result of incorrect classification under Chapter heading 8702, 8703 or 8704 shall not be enforced. Therefore, the duty was not being paid. (v) In appeal filed by respondent, the first appellate authority allowed the appeal. 3. Heard Sh. G.M. Sharma, the Ld. AR for the appellant and Sh. B.L. Narasimhan, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent. 4. After hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as is evident from the order in Appeal No. 357/CE/CHD-I/01 dated 30.07.2001 and 84/CE/CHD-I/2002 dated 28.02.2002 passed by the Commissioner (A), Chandigarh who had allowed the benefit of notification no. 67/95-CE in the earlier cases of demand of duty on Seats in the appellants own case. These orders were assailed by the department before the CESTAT who vide final order no. 470-473/02/B dated 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CHD/2004 dated 25.06.2004. In view of the above, I find that M/s Swaraj Mazda Ltd. paid duty on the body built motor vehicles got manufactured on job work basis under Rule 57 AC from the appellant and therefore the appellant are eligible to avail exemption on the seats manufactured and consumed captively in the manufacture of such vehicles under notification no. 67/95-CE. The demand of duty there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
