Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 311 - AT - Central ExciseCharge differential Central Excise duty - amount received from vehicle manufacturers for undertaking rectification/upgradation / replacing of leaf springs in chassis, which were sent to them for body building - Held that:- The chassis is manufactured by the motor-vehicle manufacturer along with the leaf springs for fabrication of body. The leaf springs cannot be identified as independent of chassis on which duty is paid as manufactured item, by the manufacturer. Secondly, we find that Notification No. 3/2001-CE dated 01/03/2001 and 6/2002-CE dated 01/03/2002 specifically indicate, for discharge of concessional duty liability, shall be excluding the value of chassis used in such vehicle. Assuming even if the modification/replacement of the leaf spring is considered as a manufacturing activity, it would be manufacturing activity on the chassis and not on the body building activity. As per notification 3/2001 -CE and 6/2002-CE value of the chassis needs to be excluded, if it is so, there cannot be any demand on the said value/amount received by the appellant for modification / replacement of the leaf springs before fabricating the body on the said chassis. See Mukul Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2010 (3) TMI 605 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) wherein held that the chassis includes running gear, is already included in the value of the chassis when it was cleared for body building on payment of duty. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so.
|