2016 (7) TMI 346 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal classifies vehicle seating over 12 persons under Central Excise Tariff

M/s Sita Singh & Sons P. Ltd., M/s SML Isuzu Ltd. Versus CCE, Delhi-IV

The Tribunal rules in favor of M/s Sita Singh & Sons and M/s. SML Isuzu Ltd., classifying the vehicle under heading 87.02 of the Central Excise Tariff ... Valuation - Classification - manufacturing chassis for ambulances and sending it to the second appellant for building body of the ambulances on such chassis. - Classifiable under chapter heading 87.02 or 87.03 - whether it should be valued on cost construction basis or on the basis of the sale price of the ambulances to independent buyers, by the second appellant - Held that:- Primary test is that sitting capacity of the vehicle. Admittedly 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. With regard to valuation, valuation to be made under Rule 10A of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. Therefore, we hold that the appellants are liable to pay duty on the value arrived at under Rule 10A of the said rules. - As contended by the learned Counsel that they have paid duty as per Rule 10A, this fact has to be examined by the adjudicating authority whether the appellants have paid duty as per Rule 10A or not. - Matter remanded back. Issues: Valuation of ambulances & Classification of vehiclesValuation of Ambulances:The case involves M/s Sita Singh & Sons and M/s. SML Isuzu Ltd. appealing against an order regarding the valuation of ambulances. The first issue pertains to whether the ambulances should be valued on a cost construction basis or based on the sale price to independent buyers. The appellant concedes that a previous case has settled the valuation issue against them. Hence, they do not contest the demand on this ground.Classification of Vehicles:The second issue concerns the classification of vehicles for excise duty. The dispute arises from the department proposing classification under heading 87.03 of the Central Excise Tariff, while the appellant argues for classification under heading 87.02. The appellant asserts that vehicles designed for transporting more than six persons should fall under heading 87.02, as heading 87.03 is for vehicles designed for not more than six persons. They rely on previous tribunal decisions to support their stance. The Revenue contends that the vehicle falls under heading 87.03, citing specific tariff entries.The Tribunal examines the relevant tariff headings and determines that the vehicle in question can carry more than 13 persons. The classification is to be based on the sitting capacity of the vehicle. As the vehicle can carry more than 12 persons, it is classified under heading 87.02. The Tribunal dismisses the Revenue's argument based on registration certificates indicating a seating capacity of 4, as no such vehicles were manufactured by the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal rules that the vehicle is appropriately classified under heading 87.02 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants are held liable to pay duty accordingly. On the issue of valuation, the appellants are directed to pay duty as per Rule 10A of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. The Tribunal orders verification of any differential duty paid and states that no penalty is imposed on the appellants. The appeals are disposed of with these terms.