LexCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, T.N. versus M/S VINAYAGA BODY BUILDING INDUSTRY LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 911 t COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, T.N. A v. M/S VINAYAGA BODY BUILDING INDUSTRY LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2006) MARCH 4, 2008 B (S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: Chapter 87 - Sub Heading 8702.10 - Manufacture of c motor cabs. on duty paid chassis - Cl~ssification of - Levy of National Calamity Contingency Duty - Assesse-manufacturer of motor cabs, relying on classification of chassis under Sub- Heading 8702. 90 and claiming the same classification for motor cabs as well - Also relying on job cards - HELD: Investigation carried out and the documents revealed that Sub- D ~ Heading 8702.10 was applicable - Further, payability of duty would depend on registration certificates in respect of vehicle in question - Relevant factor is seating capacity for which registration certificate had been granted and not the opinion of,inanufacturer of chassis ....: Similarly, stand of assessee E based on job-work rightly rejected - Revenue rightly classified motor cabs in question under Sub-Heading 8702.10 - Central Excise Act, 1944-s.11-A- Central Excise Rules, 1944-r4(1). The respondent was engaged in manufacture of F motor cabs on duty paid chassis, with a seating capacity .. of 12 passengers and 1 driver. The manufacturers of chassis in their invoices placed the said goods under Sub-Heading 8706.29 of Chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue classified the motor cabs under · · Sub-Heading 8702.10 and issued a show cause notice G calling upon the respondent to pay one percent National . . . Calamity Contingency Duty for the period 1.3.2003 to "' 30.9.2003, in terms ofs.11-Aofthe Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 4(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 along 911 H 912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R. A with the penalty at the prescribed rate: The respondent 1 filed an appeal contending that the motor cabs manufactured by it were classifiable under Sub-Heading 8702.90 as indicated in the invoices of manufacturers and further the job cards issued also showed that the orders . B were for fabrication of more than 16 seats in the cab. The appellate authority declined to interfere, but the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the - demand. In the instant appeal filed by the Revenue, it was C contended for the appellant that the Tribunal erred in classifying the goods under Sub-Heading 8702.90 on the basis of the invoices issued by the manufacturers of chassis. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The respondent-assessee during the ~ period in question was stated to have manufactured 87 maxi cabs. An investigation in regard to the number of seats of the said vehicles carried out, showed that the E assessee had built maxi cabs with seating capacity of 12 + 1 and not 16 + 1. Documentary evidences were also collected by the revenue from various customers. Sub- Head i ng 8702.10 would, therefore, be applicable. [para 15, 18) [918-8, C, E] F 1.2 Sub-Heading 8702.10 specifies for a vehicle G H designed for the transport of more than six persons but • not more than twelve persons excluding the driver. It is also a 'cab' within the meaning of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. [para 19] [918-F, G] 1.3 The finding that the respondent manufactured bodies for user thereof for maxi cabs with seating capacity of 12 persons excluding the driver is a finding of _, fact. Only because the manufacturers of chassis had classified the said goods under Sub-Heading 8702.90, the COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, T.N. v. M/S 913 VINAYAGA BODY BUILDING IND. LTD. [S.B. SINHA, J.] I- same having regard to the independent manufacturing A activities carried on by the respondent, was not decisive. For good and sufficient reasons, the claim raised on behalf of the assessee with reference to the job-work had been rej~cted. [para 19] [918-G, H; 919-A] 1.4 The question in regard to the payability of duty B would furthermore depend upon the registration certificates in respect of the vehicle in question. It is a statutory document granted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Such a certificate is issued upon an inspection of the vehicle by the authorities of the c transport department. On a chassis classifiable under Sub-Heading 8706.29, the manufacturer can make a body thereupon having regard to the nature of orders placed by their cust
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.