TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emblage with other goods, abroad cannot be considered to be satisfying the condition under notification 94/96. - Decided against the assessee. - C/761/2003-Mum - A/160/2012/CSTB/C-I - Dated:- 2-2-2012 - Mr Ashok Jindal, Mr P R Chandrasekharan, JJ. For Appellant: Charanya Lakshmikumaran , Adv. For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kalra , Appraiser (A.R) Per: P R Chandrasekharan: The appeal is directed Order-in-Appeal no. 116/2003 (JCH) dated 09.7.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The facts for consideration in this case are as follows. M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd., the appellant, filed a bill of entry no. 537187 dated 27.12.2001 for clearance of goods described as import of exported goods chassis sent fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant submits that the benefit of notification 94/96 has been wrongly denied to them. The said notification, vide sr. no. 3 of the table annexed thereto, grants exemption on the goods exported when re-imported into India provided that the goods are the same which were exported. As per explanation A goods shall not be deemed to be the same if they are re-imported from abroad after being subjected to remanufacturing or re-processing, recycling or recasting . The Ld. Advocate relies on the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh reported in 1988(34)ELT 631 wherein it was held that building of body on chassis does not amount to manufacture of motor vehicle' and it will contin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of export comprises in itself three essentials: (i) that there must be a sale; (ii) that goods must actually be exported; and (iii ) that the sale must be a part and parcel of the export. 4. The Ld. Appraiser AR for the revenue submits that as far as the customs duty is concerned, the goods have to be assessed as presented and in the case under consideration the goods as presented before the customs were fully built buses, while what was exported was only chassis fitted with engine. Therefore, the provisions of Notification 94/96-Cus does not apply to the facts of the case. He relies on the judgment of Tribunal in Ford India 2008(228 )ELT 71 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hewlett Packard 2007(217)ELT 484 (SC) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove facts, it is clearly seen that the goods under exportation was chassis fitted with engine whereas the goods under imported was a fully built bus with many fittings and attachments. Under the Indian Customs Tariff, chassis fitted with engine falls under heading no. 8706 whereas buses fall under heading no. 8702. For the purpose of levy of customs duty, the goods have to be assessed as presented before the customs . In the case under consideration the goods at the time of importation as presented were fully built buses containing fitments such as Air Conditioner, T.V., video, Coffee maker, music system and refrigerator. The goods which were exported were (as declared by the appellant) chassis fitted with engine. Notification 94/96 stipul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relevant time, it was held that the activity was one of manufacture of bus bodies. In the case of Patnaik , the issue before the Court was whether the construction of a bus body, on a chassis is a works contract or not and it was held that it was a works contract and sales tax can be levied only on the consideration received for the construction of bus bodies. Similarly, in the case of Azad Coach Builders decided by the Supreme Court, the issue before the Court was the meaning of the phrase sale in the course of export and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that said phrase comprises of ( i ) that there must be a sale; (ii) that goods must actually be exported; (iii) that the sale must be a part and parcel of the export. The facts arising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
