9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y liability availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty as provided in Notification No. 239/86 as amended. The Revenue authorities, after scrutinizing the records, came to the conclusion that the products manufactured by the appellant would get classified under Heading 8707.00 and raised the show cause notice demanding the differential duty. Five show cause notices were issued for demanding differential duty for the period 3-5-1988 to December 1989. The appellant contested the matter on merits before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority did not agree with the contentions raised and confirmed the demands with interest and also imposed penalty. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellant preferred appeal before the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the manufacture of motor vehicles for transport of the goods on which duty liability is discharged. It is his submission that the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Kamal Auto Industries v. CCE, Jaipur - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 558, is also in their favour as to the classification of the products manufactured and cleared by them. 4. The learned departmental representative, on the other hand, would submit that the LPG tanks which are on an attachment at one end to the running gear result in emergence of new products, viz. semi-tanker trailer coupled through a special coupling device to the prime mover. It is his submission that LPG tanks or bodies for the vehicles are correctly classifiable under Heading 87.07 and submit that this vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to duty even accepted, the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E. needs to be extended inasmuch as it is undisputed that the said tanks which are fabricated in the appellant's premises are fixed on one end on a running gear and the other end on a non-running gear. We find from the records that the lower authorities are accepting the fact that what rolls out of factory of the appellant is a "Motor vehicle for transportation of goods", and have accepted the duty liability so discharged. We find that this is the view which has been expressed by the C.B.E. & C. in Circular No. 2/89, dated 13-1-1989 as is relied upon by the departmental representative. C.B.E. & C., in their circular at para 5, has stated as under :- "5. In view of the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
