TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smetic changes on the duty paid cars and vehicles these duty paid vehicles are completely ready for use with its body. They are doing cosmetic changes as per the requirement of the customer inside and outside of the vehicle. In our considered view these activity do not amount to manufacture for the reason that the original duty paid motor vehicles remained as motor vehicles only, except some changes and due to these changes original identity of the product in terms of Central Excise provisions does not change. Classification of ambulances manufactyured by appellant - N/N. 06/2006-CE dt. 01.03.2006 - Held that: - issue of classification of Ambulances was examined by this Tribunal in the case of Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-IV [2016 (7) TMI 346 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], where also the vehicle was capable of carrying more than 12 people as in the present case, it was held in that case that vehicle in question can carry more than 12 persons excluding the driver or 14 persons including the driver. Therefore, we hold that the vehicle in question is classifiable under heading 87.02 of CETA. - It is not disputed that the appellant have not availed the Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the cost of the chassis in the assessable value of the Ambulances. Further, for the purpose of calculation of NCCD, the appellants had included the cost of the chassis in the assessable value whereas for the calculation of the excise duty they had not included the cost of chassis in the assessable value. A show cause notice was accordingly issued on 07.01.2011, which was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner. In his adjudication order, the Ld. Commissioner held that the processes of refurbishing of Ambulances amounted to manufacture and held that the goods are classifiable under chapter heading No. 8703 3392. Ld. Commissioner also held that the goods manufactured by the appellants were Ambulances falling under chapter 8703 3392 and hence the benefit of Notification No. 06/2006-CE dt. 01.03.2006 was not available to the 14 Ambulances manufactured/refurbished by them. It was also held that the appellants are liable to pay duty on the complete value of Ambulances and not on the fabrication charges as the processes carried out by the appellants on the chassis/body shall amount to manufacture of complete Ambulances. Accordingly the demand of ₹ 1,00,09,079/- was confirmed along wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vehicles which they have received were in the nature of the Ambulances ab initio as is evident from the certificate of the registration taken by the Joint Director, Medical and Rural Health, Govt. of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the finding given by the Ld. Commissioner in his order that the vehicles which the noticee received could not be used as Ambulance is patently erroneous. We also find that after the process of refurbishing/renovation, vehicle remained as an Ambulance only and did not undergo any transformation to a new product. The nature and use of the vehicle, in other words the basic character of the vehicle, remained same as before the process of refurbishing. In our view, therefore, no new article emerged out of the process undertaken by the appellant. As has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. (supra):- 16.On an analysis of the aforesaid rulings, a two-fold test emerges for deciding whether the process is that of manufacture. First, whether by the said process a different commercial commodity comes into existence or whether the identity of the original commodity ceases to exist; secondly, whether the commodity which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f fabrication if undertaken on the chasis of old vehicle and also the activity of mounting or fitting of any equipment on such chasis shall amount to manufacture of a motor vehicle. Each such activity described in the said Chapter Note would independently qualify for being manufacturing process attracting central excise levy on the resultant motor vehicles in terms of said Chapter Note. As per the fact of the present case it is undisputed that in the activity of customization of the car, the respondent has only made partial changes in the completely built up vehicle therefore they have neither fabricated any body/equipment nor mounted the same on chasis. Therefore the activity of customization carried out by the respondent does not fall under the four corners of Chapter Note 3. Considering this undisputed position Ld. Commissioner has correctly held that customization of the completely built up vehicle does not amount to manufacture even in terms of Chapter Note 3. We do agree with the findings of the Commissioner. As regard the judgments cited by the revenue, we find that in all those judgments the activities were of fabrication of complete body and mounting thereof on the chasis. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not carried in lying condition and it can carry 4 persons when the patient is carried in lying condition. Basically, the departments case is that since it can carry only 4 persons when the patient is carried on a stretcher and the vehicle is designed for such use, it would merit classification under sub-heading 8703.90 and not under sub-heading 8702.10. 11. Relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of TELCO (supra), and discussion hereinabove, we hold that on the issue of classification the vehicle in question is appropriately classifiable under Heading 87.02 of CETA. The appellants are liable to pay duty accordingly. Following the above judgment of this Tribunal, we hold that the goods cleared by the appellants are correctly classified under Tariff Heading No. 8702 of CETH. 9. The appellants have claimed the benefit of Sr. No. 41 of Notification No. 06/2006-CE dt. 01.03.2006. It is not disputed that the appellant have not availed the Cenvat Credit on chassis. Since, we have held that the goods are classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 8702, the appellants are therefore entitled to the benefit of Sr. No. 41 of Notification No. 06/2006-CE. 10. On th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6% 16% (iv) for the transport of goods, other than petrol driven; 16% Nil (v) for the transport of goods, other than mentioned against (iv) above. 16% 16% (2) Vehicles of heading No. 87.16 manufactured by a manufacturer, other than the manufacturer of the chassis. 16% - 53 Explanation. - For the purposes of entries (1) and (2), the value of vehicle shall be the value of the vehicle excluding the value of the chassis used in such vehicle. Condition No. 53 reads as follows : 53. If no credit of duty paid on the chassis falling under heading No. 87.06 has been taken under rule 3 or rule 11 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 5. We find that there is no substantial different between the language of two notifications and therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rubi Coach Builders Ltd. relied upon in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
