9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises of the appellant and verified records maintained therein. It was noticed that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of MTT either on the chassis/trailers purchased from the manufacturers or undertook such activity on chassis supplied free of cost by the telecom company. The appellants followed different methods of valuation in these two situations. In the first case, the appellants included value of chassis in the assessable value as they purchased chassis in their own account and discharged duty on the gross assessable value. In case where the chassis were supplied free of cost by the telecom company they have not included the value of such chassis in the assessable value and the Central Excise Duty was not paid on gross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rate of duty and the gross duty liability of the appellant depends very much on the proper categorization of the final product. We find that in the proceedings against the appellant, this issue has not been dealt with the correct perspective. It is recorded by the original authority that for one final product they have adopted different valuation practice which is contrary to the law. Apparently, it is admitted by the original authority that the product cleared to the law. Apparently, it is admitted by the original authority that the product cleared has to be considered together, as the chassis plus MTT mounted on the same. Here, it is important to classify the said product in the form it is cleared from the appellants' unit. Admittedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e mounted on the chassis/ trailer manufactured by the motor vehicle manufacturers. What is clear from the factory is a vehicle mounted with the tower. She claimed that such goods will be classifiable only under CETH 8705. However, she submitted that the appellant had wrongly classified the goods under chapter 73. ii. Even in the de novo adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority has upheld classification of the goods under CETH 7308, completely ignoring the fact that such towers are mounted on vehicle chassis and hence the goods cleared are in the nature of special purpose vehicles and not steel structures. iii. She also submitted that under classification Heading 8705, the appellant will be entitled to full exemption under Notification N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d below:- "12. If manufactured out of chassis and equipment, on which the duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule or the additional duty leviable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), as the case may be, has already been paid." 9. In the absence of any clear finding by the authority below whether the above condition is satisfied by the appellant, we remand the matter to the Original Authority for the limited purpose of verification of the conditions attached to notification (supra). Subject to satisfaction of above condition, the appellant will be extended the benefit of clearance at 'nil' rate as above. 10. In the event of the appellant being unable to satisfy the above condition, then the question of v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
