Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (10) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... motor vehicles falling under sub-heading 8708.00 with duty @ 20% adv., and after fitment of jeep kits of motor vehicles and other motor vehicles principally designed for transport of persons falling under S. No. 8703.00 with duty @ 25% adv., vide Notfn. No. 162/86 dated 1-3-1986. 1.2 While approving the classification list No. 2/86-87 of 1-3-1986 and inspection of the manufacturing activities undertaken by the assessee and from their record, it was noticed that the assessee have filed classification list w.e.f. 1-3-1986 claiming classification for body built on M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra jeeps under sub-heading No. 8703.00 with duty @ 25% adv. vide Notification No. 162/86 dated 1-3-1986. Apart from this though the assessee are also undert .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... held that the duty paid jeeps received from the customers and dealers with canvas hood and converted into jeeps fitted with FRP (Fibre Reinforced Plastic) bodies were classifiable under sub-heading 8703.00 on the pattern of jeeps received from M/s Mahindra and Mahindra under Rule 56-B. Burden of the Asstt. Collector s order dated 6-3-1987 is that the classification of a product would not change with reference to the consignor from where the input i.e. motor vehicle chassis are received. If the motor vehicle chassis received from Mahindra Mahindra are classified by the respondent assessee under sub-heading 8703.00 after fitment of FRP bodies, there is no reason as to why the duty paid jeeps received from the customers and dealers fitted w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the body built on vehicles from duty paid vehicles under sub-heading 8707.00 e.g. in the case of Malva Motor Body Works and Others v. CCE Ahmedabad [1989 (14) ETR 499], he would like to argue this case and distinguish it from the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh and Others v. UOI [1988 (34) E.L.T. 631 (P H)] on which is based the Tribunal s aforesaid judgment. He submits that the said judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is a case relating to building of bodies on duty paid chassis of motor vehicle. This is not the case in the present matter before the Tribunal. Here a duty paid jeep with a body of canvas hood is received by the respondent and this is converted into a jeep with F .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... paid jeeps (motor vehicles) fitted with canvas hood, therefore, the above reasoning based on the Punjab and Haryana-High Court s decision would not be appropriate so far as the facts of the present matter are concerned, learned DR has submitted that he was only attempting to analyse the judgment of the High Court. 3.1 In view of the foregoing submission, he submitted that the correct classification for the products under consideration would be under 8703.00. 4. Countering the arguments Shri F.A.H. Taleyarkhan, learned advocate for the respondent company has urged that the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 631 (P H) is not applicable to the facts of the case, as rightly pointed out by the learned DR. In t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... there is a marked difference between the manufacturing activities of the respondent in respect of two types of jeeps; Mahindra and Mahindra did not send duty paid jeeps as was done by the other dealers and customers. 5. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. We are of the view that the facts in the present matter are different from the facts available in the case of Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh which came up for consideration before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the instant case the respondent company is converting a duty paid canvas hood jeep into a FRP jeep build body. It has, therefore, been rightly held by the lower appellate authority that no new product emerges but for sub-heading 8707.00 the duty wou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates