TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT NEW DELHI], it has been held that tubes and tyres cannot be considered as parts of automobiles because they are also used for animal drawn vehicles, aircrafts etc. The tubes manufactured by the appellant cannot be called as parts of automobiles and therefore the Notification No. 2/2006- CE (NT) read with Notification No. 11/2006- CE (NT) prescribing Central Excise duty under Sec.4A based on RSP does not apply - also the retrospective applicability of the Circular or otherwise becomes irrelevant. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-Revenue. - E/571/2010, E/572/2010 - A/31410-31411/2018 - Dated:- 29-10-2018 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Such a clarification will only have prospective effect and cannot have retrospective effect. This appeal is filed by the revenue challenging the Order-in-Appeal on the following grounds. (i) Board Circular F.No.167/38/2008-CX 4 dated 16.12.2008 referred to the impugned order by the first appellate authority was not in picture either in the show cause notice or in the Order-in-Original and hence the first appellate authority has travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice. (ii) The first appellate authority erred in not only relying on the Board Circular but also holding that Circulars have only prospective application. 3. The first appellate authority relied on the judgments of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of H.M. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntions parts, components and assemblies of automobiles falling under any heading. Hence, it is not necessary that the tubes in question should have fallen under Chapter 87 for this notification to be applicable. 5. Learned counsel submits that the first appellate authority has correctly passed the orders as there was a genuine doubt regarding the applicability of the notification during the relevant period as is evident from the text of the circular itself. Paras 3.1, 3.2 4 of the Circular No. 167/38/2008-CX4 dated 16.12.2008 read as follows: 3.1 Another issue that has arisen is the scope of the term parts as used in the aforementioned entry. Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff covers parts of different vehicles. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention that the first appellate authority has also examined the matter on merits and has recorded his findings in Para 17 as follows: 17. Therefore, I find that the Apex Court has referred to tyres as accessory to an automobile. Even as per the trade parlance, I find that there is a distinct and separate market for tyres and tubes and a separate market for parts and accessories of motor vehicles. Generally, a dealer in tyres and tubes of motor vehicles will not deal in parts and accessories of motor vehicles. It is doubtful that a tube will be referred to as a part in the automobile market. There is, thus, ambiguity in the scope of the expression parts, components and assemblies of automobiles when dealing with goods like tubes which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for parts of automobiles to be covered, they need not fall under chapter 87 and they can fall under any heading of the Tariff. The second question is whether tubes should be considered as parts of automobiles or otherwise regardless of the fact that they are covered under chapter 40 of the Central Excise Tariff. In the case of J.K Tyre Industries Ltd (supra), it has been held that tubes and tyres cannot be considered as parts of automobiles because they are also used for animal drawn vehicles, aircrafts etc. We respectfully follow the decision in this case and hold that the tubes manufactured by the appellant cannot be called as parts of automobiles and therefore the Notification No. 2/2006- CE (NT) read with Notification No. 11/2006- CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|