9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - In this appeal, preferred by Revenue, the issue involved is whether the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 462/86-C.E., dated 9-12-86 is available to the Respondents who fabricate body on the chasis of the motor vehicles. 2. Shri M.P. Singh, learned D.R., submitted that M/s. Sita Singh Engineers & Sons are engaged in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tructure or equipment on the chassis shall amount to manufacture of a motor vehicle falling under Heading No. 87.01 to 87.05 of the Tariff was held not to have survived in view of the dismissal of the appeal in the case of Kamal Auto Industries on merits. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Haryana Roadways Engg. Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, [2001 (131) E.L.T. 662] where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption under Notification No. 462/86. He, further, submitted that Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules at the relevant time did not provide provisional assessment where the matter in issue pertains to the availability or otherwise of an exemption notification. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Ram Body Builders, [1997 (94) E.L.T. 44 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hapter 87, that the classification of bodies built by independent manufacturer on chassis is classifiable under 87.07. This decision of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as the appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision in Kamal Auto Industries case was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit. The Respondents cannot also raise the arguments that provisional as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
