Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 141 - AT - Central ExciseManufacture - process OF refurbishing old Ambulances - benefit of N/N. 06/2006-CE dt. 01.03.2006 - whether the renovation of 14 old and used Ambulances amounts to manufacture? - Held that: - the appellants have showed that the vehicles which they have received were in the nature of the Ambulances ab initio as is evident from the certificate of the registration taken by the Joint Director, Medical and Rural Health, Govt. of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the finding given by the Ld. Commissioner in his order that the vehicles which the noticee received could not be used as Ambulance is patently erroneous - after the process of refurbishing/renovation, vehicle remained as an Ambulance only and did not undergo any transformation to a new product. The nature and use of the vehicle, in other words the basic character of the vehicle, remained same as before the process of refurbishing. In our view, therefore, no new article emerged out of the process undertaken by the appellant. As regard demand of duty on customization of motor vehicle we find that the respondent is carrying out the activity of cosmetic changes on the duty paid cars and vehicles these duty paid vehicles are completely ready for use with its body. They are doing cosmetic changes as per the requirement of the customer inside and outside of the vehicle. In our considered view these activity do not amount to manufacture for the reason that the original duty paid motor vehicles remained as motor vehicles only, except some changes and due to these changes original identity of the product in terms of Central Excise provisions does not change. Classification of ambulances manufactyured by appellant - N/N. 06/2006-CE dt. 01.03.2006 - Held that: - issue of classification of Ambulances was examined by this Tribunal in the case of Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-IV [2016 (7) TMI 346 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], where also the vehicle was capable of carrying more than 12 people as in the present case, it was held in that case that vehicle in question can carry more than 12 persons excluding the driver or 14 persons including the driver. Therefore, we hold that the vehicle in question is classifiable under heading 87.02 of CETA. - It is not disputed that the appellant have not availed the Cenvat Credit on chassis. Since, we have held that the goods are classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 8702, the appellants are therefore entitled to the benefit of Sr. No. 41 of N/N. 06/2006-CE. Valuation - chassis is supplied after payment of duty by the principal manufacturer - Held that: - the value of the chassis and duty thereon is to be excluded for determining the net duty liability on the Ambulance - this issue has been settled by this Tribunal in its judgments in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. Ashiyana Autobodies Ltd. [2016 (12) TMI 1451 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that duty of excise paid on chassis is excludible - the duty has to be calculated on the fabrication charges only. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|