Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bangalore-I Versus M/s. Volvo India P Ltd

2017 (8) TMI 461 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Classification of goods - Tractors - classified under Chapter Subheading No.8701.90 or under Chapter 8704.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985? - allegation that, the motor vehicles is used for transport of goods and not meant for agricultural use or engineering work. - whether or not designed to carry any load - Held that: - the issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee in the assessee's own case decided by the Mumbai Bench VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ommissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent are the manufacturers of motor vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and have declared 'Tractors' under Chapter Subheading No.8701.90 in the Classification Declaration w.e.f. 29.6.1998 consequent to their registration. It was opined by the department that the 'Tractors' classi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssified in the said declaration should not be considered as "Motor Vehicles for Transport of Goods" and be reclassified under Chapter 8704.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the differential duty should not be demanded under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. Further to this show cause notice, two show cause notices vide OC No.1/99 dt.31.12.98 and OC No.772/1.6.99 for ₹ 18,43,801/- and ₹ 20,15,646/- respectively covering the period from July 1988 to February 19 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

73Q for contravention of provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944, Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) vide Order-in-Appeal No.296/2001 dt.29.3.2001/19.4.2001 has observed that the subject Order-in-Original has been passed relying upon the certificate issued by Automobile Research Association of India, Pune, a copy of which had not been given to the respondent; that any relied upon documents which becomes part of the copy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ated to the respondent along with a copy of the letter dated 1.10.99 addressed to ARAI seeking clarification and letter dated 29.10.99 received from ARAI were also sent to the respondent. After the respondent was heard on 10.8-2001, the Deputy Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2001/10.1.2002 has held that the tractors declared in the Classification Declaration No.1/98 w.e.f. 29.6.1998 and classified under Chapter Subheading No.8701.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is in or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version