1988 (6) TMI 169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Respondent [Order per : K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)].  - The dispute in this appeal is on chargeability of Central Excise duty on specialised material handling equipment installed on motor vehicles. The period of controversy is from 1-8-1979 to 27-2-1986. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in mounting/fixing/fitting the specialised equipment on duty-paid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ason, there is no attempt by the lower authorities at re-assessing the whole thing as a motor vehicle again under Item No. 34. 3. What the lower authorities have done is to assess the specialised equipment part separately under Item 68 of the Tariff as goods, not elsewhere specified. It is not permissible for the period prior to the introduction of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1980 because the speci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t by part and it is only when the mounting of all the parts is complete that the specialised equipment is identifiable but at that stage the whole thing is a vehicle with the equipment fitted on it and not the equipment as such and it is the specialised vehicle which is removed from the factory and not the equipment as a separate article When the whole thing is one identifiable entity - a speciali....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch equipment was a fixture on the chassis, there would be merit in the other argument of the appellants that the equipment was entitled to full exemption under either of the notifications Nos. 167/79-C.E., dated 19-4-1979 and 118/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. The first notification exempted parts of motor vehicles falling under Item 68 which were intended for use in further manufacture of excisable go....