Exemption for motor vehicles denied to cleared chassis, while duty was recomputed and penalty deleted on bona fide belief.

Chassis cleared without bodies did not qualify as fuel-efficient light commercial motor vehicles for Notification No. 462/86-C.E., because exemption depends on the goods as actually removed and a chassis is separately classified from a motor vehicle under Chapter 87. The exemption was therefore denied. Duty, however, had to be recomputed in line with the larger bench valuation ruling governing deduction of duty from invoice price and reassessment of assessable value. Penalty was set aside because the dispute involved interpretation of the exemption notification and the assessee acted under a bona fide belief supported by earlier departmental conduct.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether chassis cleared by the manufacturer were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 462/86-C.E. as fuel-efficient light commercial motor vehicles falling within Chapter 87; (ii) whether the duty demand required recomputation in light of the larger bench decision on valuation; (iii) whether penalty was exigible.

Issue (i): Whether chassis cleared by the manufacturer were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 462/86-C.E. as fuel-efficient light commercial motor vehicles falling within Chapter 87.

Analysis: The notification exempted fuel-efficient light commercial motor vehicles of payload not exceeding 4,000 kilograms. Chapter 87 separately classified chassis under Heading 87.06 as goods for motor vehicles, distinct from motor vehicles themselves. The chassis, as removed from the factory, were not fitted with bodies and therefore did not satisfy the description of light commercial motor vehicles for the purpose of the notification. The testing of the model with cab and body did not alter the fact that the cleared goods were only chassis.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 462/86-C.E. was not available to the chassis.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand required recomputation in light of the larger bench decision on valuation.

Analysis: Although the exemption was held inapplicable, the duty had to be worked out on the correct assessable value in accordance with the larger bench ruling governing deduction of duty from invoice price and recomputation of assessable value.

Conclusion: The duty demand was directed to be recomputed.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty was exigible.

Analysis: The dispute turned on interpretation of an exemption notification, and the assessee had acted under a bona fide belief supported by earlier departmental action. In these circumstances, penalty was not justified.

Conclusion: Penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of recomputation of duty and deletion of penalty, while the denial of exemption to the chassis was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods must satisfy the exemption notification in the form in which they are cleared, and a separately classified chassis cannot be treated as a light commercial motor vehicle for availing an exemption meant for motor vehicles.

---