9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Certain investigations were conducted by the officers of DGCEI and on completion of the investigation proceedings, were initiated against the appellants for non payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,80,53,560/-. The period involved is 2004-05 to 2007-08. The original authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal amount of penalty on main appellant. A penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs was imposed on the second appellant who is the Director of the main appellant. The brief facts, relevant to the present appeals, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Car Carriers trailers. They purchase duty paid motor vehicle chassis falling under Central Excise Tariff heading 8706 from the manufacturers like Tata Motors etc. Sometimes, the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r substantial part of the weight of the trailer and the load to be carried by the trailer. It is the claim of the appellant that they have satisfied the condition in the notification and the original authority denied the exemption on a wrong reason that to claim exemption, the body should be built on the chassis similar to bus body. Further, it is clear that after manufacture of car carrier trailer and its integration on duty paid chassis a fully manufactured motor vehicle for carriage of goods (cars) is cleared by the appellant. This motor vehicle falling under Chapter 87 is fully exempt in terms of Sl. No. 212 of Notification No. 6/2002-CE. 3. Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the lower authority and relied on certain case laws regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that car carrier trailer are huge box like structures and are designed to a particular use. Accordingly, the coupling, mounting or linking with the prime mover motor chassis will have to be according to the nature and feasibility of transport in the highways. We note that the trailer shares the weight on the rear wheels of the prime mover, in the front portion. It was noted in the impugned order that car carrier trailer manufactured by the appellant is "coupled to" fifth wheel of prime movers and not mounted on it and thus they are not involved in manufacturing of any new motor vehicle. Factually, we find that the said observation does not reflect the true nature of the integration of the trailer with the prime mover. As already noted, diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engine and hence not a chassis. We find that the context of the Tribunal decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal in the said case was examining the scope of tariff heading 8716. In the present case, the classification of the trailor manufactured by the appellant is not disputed. It is only with reference to the captive consumption of the said items the claim for exemption is in dispute. 6. We also noted that the ld. AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Heat Weld vs. CCE - 1992 (57) ELT 432 (Tri.) and Mithusha Vessels & Engineers P. Limited vs. CCE, Mumbai-III - 1999 (114) ELT 239 (Tribunal) and in CCE, New Delhi vs. Eicher Tractors - 2001 (127) ELT 846 (Tri. Del.). We note all these cases dealt wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
