TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules body building on duty paid chassis as manufacturing under Central Excise Tariff Act</h1> The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant's body building activity using duty paid chassis constituted manufacturing under the Central ... Process amounting to manufacture - purchase of duty paid chassis and undertaking body building activity - motor vehicles described in sub-headings 8702.10 and 8702.90 of Heading 87.02 - HELD THAT:- Given the structure of the statute which clearly comprehends Entry 87.02 [by specifically referring to Headings 8702.10 and 8702.90); that the activity carried on by the appellant results in a finished product i.e. useable buses, the appellant’s contention that fabrication does not amount to manufacture, does not merit consideration. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order therefore, does not call for interference. Appeal dismissed. Issues involved:Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 regarding liability to pay Central Excise duty on body building activity using duty paid chassis.Detailed Analysis:1. Issue of liability to pay Central Excise duty: The appellant purchased duty paid chassis and engaged in body building activity, disputing the liability to pay Central Excise duty on the grounds that the assembling process did not amount to manufacturing. The lower authorities rejected this contention, leading to the appeal.2. Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff Act: The appellant argued that Note 3 of Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, prevents them from being characterized as a 'manufacturer.' The appellant's counsel highlighted that the mere activity of fabricating bodies does not constitute manufacturing, especially when considering Entries 87.02, 87.06, and 87.07 of the statute.3. Contention of Revenue: The Revenue's counsel pointed out that although Note 3 refers to Heading 87.06 of Chapter 87, a closer examination reveals that motor vehicles falling under sub-headings 8702.10 and 8702.90 of Heading 87.02 are clearly covered. This argument supports the view that the appellant's activity results in a finished product, making them liable for Central Excise duty.4. Judgment: The Court analyzed the statute, emphasizing the inclusion of Entry 87.02 which specifically mentions sub-headings 8702.10 and 8702.90. Considering that the appellant's activity results in usable buses, the Court concluded that the fabrication constitutes manufacturing. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the impugned order did not warrant interference.5. Claim for Cenvat credit: The appellant's counsel alternatively requested permission to claim Cenvat credit if the Court did not interfere with the impugned order. The Court clarified that while the appellant could seek any available remedy for Cenvat or input credit, it must be done in accordance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
