9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brication of body on motor vehicle chassis; that they receive chassis from M/s. Swaraj Majda Ltd. under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and build the body on the chassis which is cleared back to M/s. Swaraj Majda without payment of duty; that M/s. Swaraj Majda, thereafter, sells the complete vehicles under Heading 87.02 or 87.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act on payment of appropriate Excise duty; that the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise under the Adjudication Order No. 113/2000, dated 18-12-2000 confirmed the demand of Central Excise Duty and imposed penalty holding that they had carried out the activity of fabrication of bodies to be termed as "manufacturing of bodies" classifiable under Heading 87.07 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is required since Rule 57F provides for return of the goods without payment of duty; that it is well settled legal position that where the job-worker has conducted the operations under Rule 57F, any action for short levy or non-levy of duty would lie against only the manufacturer who had sent the goods under Rule 57F and not on the job worker. He relied upon the decision in the case of Roplas India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Pune - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 705 (T), CCE, Jaipur II v. Tirupati Fabrics & Industries Ltd. - 2001 (46) RLT 3 (CEGAT) and M. Tex v. CCE, Jaipur - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 73 (Tri.) = 2000 (39) RLT 1091 (CEGAT). 3. The learned Advocate also mentioned that the Appellants receive duty paid chassis from Transport Corpn. for fabrication o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mazda are sending motor vehicle chassis to the appellants for fabrication of bodies and the appellants are fabricating the bodies on these chassis out of the raw materials purchased by them from the market. The question to be decided is whether the Appellants have to discharge the duty liability on the bodies fabricated by them. It has been held by the Supreme Court in CCE v. M/s. Ram Body Builders - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 442 (S.C.) that "the bodies which are built on chassis supplied by the customers would fall under Heading No. 87.07 of the Central Excise Tariff." Even after the introduction of Note 3 to Chapter 87, the Appellate Tribunal has held in the case of Kamal Auto Industries v. Collector - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 558 that bodies built on cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue that the Appellants are not carrying out any of the processes mentioned in Rule 57F. They are, on the other hand, as mentioned by them in Memorandum of Appeal themselves, fabricating "the body on the chassis supplied by Swaraj Mazda Ltd., on brick by brick basis by using their own materials." As such, they are engaged in the fabrication of body on the chassis out of their own materials, an activity not covered by Rule 57F. It has been held in the case of CCE, Mumbai-II v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 632 (T) that after fabrication of body "a motor vehicle comes into existence." The Tribunal did not find "any substance in the submission of the learned DR that the motor vehicle which is cleared by the body builders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
