9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding by the authority below whether the above condition is satisfied by the appellant, we remand the matter to the Original Authority for the limited purpose of verification of the conditions attached to notification - matter on remand. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/50918/2017- EX [DB] - Final Order No. 57996/2017 - Dated:- 21-11-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Ms Neelima Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant Shri M.R. Sharma, DR for the respondent ORDER Per : V. Padmanabhan 1. The appeal is against the Order-in-Original No. 110/2016-17 dated 22/3/2017. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Mobile Telescopic Towers (MTT). The prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns that the products cleared from the manufacturing unit are same. The duty determination of the final products has to be uniform in the absence of any notification providing any concessional rate of duty with or without condition. In the present case, admittedly, two types of transactions were undertaken by the appellant. The first one is normal manufacturing activity on the purchased chassis and the final product which is fully built MTT on the motor vehicle is cleared on payment of duty. This is not in dispute. The 2nd transaction is that they are apparently undertaking to construct MTT on chassis supplied free of cost by the customer. It is relevant to note that the MT built on chassis/ trailers becomes part and parcel of the final prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and thereafter arrive at proper valuation and duty liability applying any notification and extending concession to the given situation. An opportunity shall be given to the appellant to present their case. With this observation, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. 3. The impugned Order-in-Original has been passed in the de novo proceedings in which the Adjudicating Authority once again confirmed the duty demand, interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the impugned order present appeal has been filed. 4. With the above background we heard Ms. Neelima Tripathi, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri M.R. Sharma, Ld. DR for the Revenue. 5. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted as follows; i. The appellants are engaged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ructures falling under Heading 7308. The Adjudicating Authority has ordered classification of the goods under 7308 for the reason that the assessee themselves have classified the same under 7308 and the show cause notice did not propose any reclassification. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority fell into serious error in ordering classification under 7308. It is obvious that the goods which are being cleared are motor vehicles on which Telescopic Towers have been mounted. These goods are appropriately classified under heading 8705 as special purpose motor vehicles. The appellant has also claimed that they will be entitled to nil rate of duty in terms of serial no 50 of the Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01/03/2006. On per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
