Prima facie exemption denial and full-value duty assessment upheld for buses supplied as complete motor vehicles

At the prima facie stage, exemption from pre-deposit was denied in part because the buses supplied to DMRC did not satisfy the conditions for being treated as machinery, equipment or rolling stock of DMRC, and the ownership and inventory requirements were not shown on the record. The alternative exemption for motor vehicles also failed because the condition that duty must have been paid on the chassis was not met. The vehicles were treated as complete motor vehicles, so duty was assessable on the value of the entire vehicle rather than only the bus body. Partial interim relief was therefore limited to a directed deposit, with the balance demand and penalties stayed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit in respect of duty and penalty demand arising from denial of exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E.; (ii) whether the claimed exemption for buses supplied to DMRC or the alternative exemption for motor vehicles was available; and (iii) whether duty could be confined only to the bus body or had to be assessed on the value of the entire vehicle.

Issue (i): whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit in respect of duty and penalty demand arising from denial of exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E.

Analysis: The buses were not found, at the prima facie stage, to answer the description of machinery, equipment or rolling stock procured by or on behalf of DMRC. The condition requiring the goods to form part of DMRC inventory and to be finally owned by DMRC was also not shown to be satisfied. The financial position pleaded by the appellants was not accepted as demonstrating hardship sufficient to justify complete waiver.

Conclusion: No complete waiver of pre-deposit was granted; a partial deposit was directed.

Issue (ii): whether the claimed exemption for buses supplied to DMRC or the alternative exemption for motor vehicles was available.

Analysis: The exemption claimed under Sl. No. 90 was held, prima facie, to be unavailable because the buses were feeder vehicles and not equipment, machinery or rolling stock of DMRC, and the ownership condition was not met. The alternative claim under Sl. No. 39 also failed because the relevant condition required duty to have been paid on the chassis, which had not been satisfied merely because proceedings had been initiated against the chassis supplier.

Conclusion: The exemption claims were rejected at the prima facie stage.

Issue (iii): whether duty could be confined only to the bus body or had to be assessed on the value of the entire vehicle.

Analysis: The vehicles were cleared as complete motor vehicles, and the duty liability was treated as attaching to the full value of the final product. Since duty had not been paid on the chassis, credit-based reduction was also not available on the appellants' stated footing.

Conclusion: Duty was held, prima facie, to be payable on the value of the entire vehicle.

Final Conclusion: The order granted only partial interim relief by directing a limited deposit and staying the balance demand and penalties, while declining to accept the appellants' claim for full waiver.

Ratio Decidendi: For interim relief, exemption conditions and duty-paid status of essential inputs must be satisfied on the existing record, and duty on a cleared final product is assessable on its full value unless the relevant exemption or credit condition is established.

---