TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the chassis by manufacturer - clarification of the above circular has not been applied by the Commissioner and therefore, the confirmation of cess in the present case is not correct and the same is required to be set-aside including the penalty - E/237/2006 - 1266/2007 - Dated:- 12-11-2007 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellants of body building is not denied by the revenue. The Board has clarified through a Circular No. 41/88, dated 31-8-1988 that cess is not required to be levied on those who are carrying on the activity of body building. The circular No. 41/88, dated 31-8-1988 clarified this point and clearly laid down that the cess is required to be discharged by the manufacturers of the chassis and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the vehicle manufacturers and not from the body builder. Further the provisions of IDR Act 1951, under which the notification levying the cess has been issued, provides that me rate of cess shall not in any case exceed two annas per cent of the value of the goods. If the cess is levied in line with the Excise Tariff Act, 1985, this would exceed the maximum rate of 1/8th per cent prescribed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
