9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Besides, they are also engaged in fabrication of tankers of S. Steel and M. Steel. After fabrication, tankers as such are cleared outside the factory and in some cases these are mounted or fitted on chassis of motor vehicle which is used for transportation of chemicals. The assessee classified the tankers under Heading No. 87.07 under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and claimed duty exemption thereon under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 (Sl. No. 239). The assessee stated that they are manufacturing road tankers as per the specifications given by the customers i.e., Kovvur unit and that normally those road tankers are cleared "as such" to their Kovvur unit in their own/other lor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also find that since the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur were not contested by the department, the adjudicating authority has rightly relied upon the same and dropped further proceedings proposed in the show cause notice. In view of the above, I pass the following order. Order The appeal filed by the department is dismissed. The Order in Original No. 08/2004 dated 12-5-2004, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Eluru Division is upheld" 5. Hence, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. Learned SDR submits and reiterates the grounds of appeal which are as under : The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur is not legal and proper for the following reasons : 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the cases only the bodies are being cleared outside the factory for which no exemption is available in the Notification as stated above. The first types of clearances have not even fulfilled the condition that the bodies are to be mounted/fitted on a motor vehicle chassis. 7. None appeared on behalf of the respondents but they filed written submission. Since the issue involved in this case is in a narrow compass, and is of 2006, we take up the appeal for disposal considering the written submission. 8. On perusal of the records, we find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has followed his own orders in an identical issue in respect of the very same assessee. On a specific query from the Bench, learned SDR fairly submits that Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
